MD v AA & Anor [2014] EWHC 2756 (Fam) (31 July 2014)

MD v AA & Anor [2014] EWHC 2756 (Fam) (31 July 2014)

Recognition of the Romanian custody order is refused because the child, David, was not given an opportunity to be heard in the Romanian proceedings, violating fundamental procedural principles under Article 23(b) BIIR. Additionally, the mother was not effectively served or given an opportunity to be heard, engaging Articles 23(c) and (d). The public policy ground under Article 23(a) was not made out. The registration process in England was also procedurally deficient but not determinative.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2756 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant: MD; First Respondent: AA; Second Respondent (by His Children's Guardian): DD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law – International Child Custody) / High Court Judgment on Appeal Against Recognition and Registration of Foreign Custody Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; recognition and registration of the Romanian order refused.
Legal Topics
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Parental Responsibility, Child's Right to Be Heard, Service of Process, Public Policy Exception, Brussels II Revised Regulation (biir)
Family Law Private International Law Child Law Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Parental Responsibility Child's Right to Be Heard Service of Process Public Policy Exception +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MD

Applicant

AA

First Respondent

DD

Second Respondent (by His Children's Guardian)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law – International Child Custody) / High Court Judgment on Appeal Against Recognition and Registration of Foreign Custody Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Romanian custody order should be recognised and registered in England under BIIR
  2. 2 Whether the child was given an opportunity to be heard in the Romanian proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the mother was properly served and given an opportunity to be heard

Ratio Decidendi

Recognition of the Romanian custody order is refused because the child, David, was not given an opportunity to be heard in the Romanian proceedings, violating fundamental procedural principles under Article 23(b) BIIR. Additionally, the mother was not effectively served or given an opportunity to be heard, engaging Articles 23(c) and (d). The public policy ground under Article 23(a) was not made out. The registration process in England was also procedurally deficient but not determinative.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; recognition and registration of the Romanian order refused.

Orders

  • Recognition of the Romanian custody order dated 27 November 2013 is refused.
  • Registration of the Romanian order for enforcement in England is set aside.