R v G

R v G

The children remained habitually resident in England at the relevant date as there was insufficient evidence of integration in Jordan and the removal was not consensual; Jordan is not a clearly more appropriate forum for welfare issues as the majority of the children's lives and relevant evidence are connected to England, and the father's applications are more likely to be available under English law.

Parties
Applicant: R; Respondent: G
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Wardship / Inherent Jurisdiction (family) / Interlocutory Judgment on Habitual Residence and Application for Stay
Outcome
Application for stay refused; English court retains jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Jurisdiction, Forum Conveniens, Child Custody, Summary Return of Children
Family Law Private International Law Habitual Residence Jurisdiction Forum Conveniens Child Custody Summary Return of Children

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Applicant

G

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Wardship / Inherent Jurisdiction (family) / Interlocutory Judgment on Habitual Residence and Application for Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the children were habitually resident in England on 9 June 2021
  2. 2 Whether proceedings should be stayed on grounds that Jordan is a more appropriate forum

Ratio Decidendi

The children remained habitually resident in England at the relevant date as there was insufficient evidence of integration in Jordan and the removal was not consensual; Jordan is not a clearly more appropriate forum for welfare issues as the majority of the children's lives and relevant evidence are connected to England, and the father's applications are more likely to be available under English law.

Court Disposition

Application for stay refused; English court retains jurisdiction.