M v B

M v B

The court found as fact that the mother only temporarily entrusted the children to the father in 2013 due to illness, and that the father wrongfully retained them in England after she requested their return. The 2008 French order remained extant and effective. The passage of time and the children’s wishes did not meet the high threshold for the public policy exception under Article 23(a). Recognition and enforcement of the French order was therefore mandatory.

Parties
Applicant: M; Respondent: B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Registration and Enforcement of Foreign Residence Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; recognition and enforcement of the 2008 French order granted.
Legal Topics
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Parental Responsibility, Child Residence Orders, Brussels II Revised Regulation, Public Policy Exception, Child Abduction
Family Law Private International Law Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Parental Responsibility Child Residence Orders Brussels II Revised Regulation Public Policy Exception Child Abduction

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Applicant

B

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Registration and Enforcement of Foreign Residence Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the French residence order of 2008 should be recognised and enforced in England under Brussels II Revised Regulation
  2. 2 Whether recognition/enforcement would be manifestly contrary to public policy under Article 23(a) of the Regulation, considering the best interests of the children

Ratio Decidendi

The court found as fact that the mother only temporarily entrusted the children to the father in 2013 due to illness, and that the father wrongfully retained them in England after she requested their return. The 2008 French order remained extant and effective. The passage of time and the children’s wishes did not meet the high threshold for the public policy exception under Article 23(a). Recognition and enforcement of the French order was therefore mandatory.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; recognition and enforcement of the 2008 French order granted.

Orders

  • Recognition and enforcement of the 2008 French residence order in favour of the mother.
  • Discharge of any order preventing removal of the children from the jurisdiction, permitting the mother to take the children to France.