L v C (Applications by non-biological mother)

L v C (Applications by non-biological mother)

The English court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Ms L's applications for residence and contact orders as G was habitually resident in Ireland at the time of application. However, the court had jurisdiction to make a declaration regarding the existence of family life under Article 8 ECHR, and on the facts, such family life existed between Ms L and G at the date of removal from England.

Parties
Applicant: Ms L; Respondent: Ms C
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Family Law Children / Judgment After Hearing of Applications
Outcome
Applications refused except for declaration of family life under Article 8 ECHR.
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibility, Jurisdiction, Article 8 ECHR, Declarations of Family Life, Non Biological Parent Rights
Family Law Human Rights Parental Responsibility Jurisdiction Article 8 ECHR Declarations of Family Life Non Biological Parent Rights

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms L

Applicant

Ms C

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Children / Judgment After Hearing of Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to entertain applications by a non-biological mother for residence/contact orders and declarations under Article 8 ECHR after the child was removed to Ireland
  2. 2 Whether a declaration of psychological parenthood or family life under Article 8 ECHR can be made in the absence of substantive proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the removal of the child to Ireland was lawful and its effect on habitual residence and jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The English court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Ms L's applications for residence and contact orders as G was habitually resident in Ireland at the time of application. However, the court had jurisdiction to make a declaration regarding the existence of family life under Article 8 ECHR, and on the facts, such family life existed between Ms L and G at the date of removal from England.

Court Disposition

Applications refused except for declaration of family life under Article 8 ECHR.

Orders

  • Declaration that at the date of G’s removal from England on 3 January 2014, family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights existed between G and Ms L.
  • All other applications by Ms L are refused.