M v F & Ors (Rev 1)

M v F & Ors (Rev 1)

The court found that the mother only consented to a holiday, not to permanent relocation, and did not acquiesce in the children's retention abroad. The removal and subsequent retention were wrongful under English law. The children remained habitually resident in England and Wales at the relevant times. Article 10 of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: M; 1st Respondent: F; 2nd, 3rd & 4th Respondents: P, Q and S (by their Children Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Family Wardship / Jurisdiction / Fact Finding Hearing on Jurisdiction
Outcome
Jurisdiction of the English court established over the children under Brussels II Revised and parens patriae.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of English Courts, Habitual Residence, Wrongful Removal or Retention of Children, Acquiescence Under Brussels II Revised, Parens Patriae Jurisdiction, Domestic Violence, Consent in Child Relocation, Interpretation of Article 10 Brussels II Revised
Family Law International Child Law Jurisdiction of English Courts Habitual Residence Wrongful Removal or Retention of Children Acquiescence Under Brussels II Revised Parens Patriae Jurisdiction Domestic Violence +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Applicant

F

1st Respondent

P, Q and S (by their Children Guardian)

2nd, 3rd & 4th Respondents

Procedural Posture

Family Wardship / Jurisdiction / Fact Finding Hearing on Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the welfare of the children under Brussels II Revised and/or parens patriae
  2. 2 Whether the removal/retention of the children outside England was wrongful
  3. 3 Whether the mother acquiesced in the retention

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the mother only consented to a holiday, not to permanent relocation, and did not acquiesce in the children's retention abroad. The removal and subsequent retention were wrongful under English law. The children remained habitually resident in England and Wales at the relevant times. Article 10 of Brussels II Revised applies, and the English court retains jurisdiction. Parens patriae jurisdiction exists for the youngest child, S.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction of the English court established over the children under Brussels II Revised and parens patriae.

Orders

  • Matter to be listed for consequential directions before Mr Justice Williams.
  • No determination made at this hearing as to exercise of jurisdiction or welfare orders.