AB, (A Child), Re

AB, (A Child), Re

Article 56 EC Regulation 2201/2003 does not eliminate or constrict the English court’s obligation to determine the child’s best interests; it only requires consultation and consent for placement in another member state.

Parties
Appellant: VB; First Respondent: Doncaster MBC; Second Respondent: Child AB (By her Children’s Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Child Placement, Parental Responsibility, EU Law, Article 56 EC Regulation 2201/2003
Family Law International Law Child Placement Parental Responsibility EU Law Article 56 EC Regulation 2201/2003

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VB

Appellant

Doncaster MBC

First Respondent

Child AB (By her Children’s Guardian)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 56 EC Regulation 2201/2003 restricts the English court's obligation to determine the child's best interests
  2. 2 Whether the child AB should be returned to her mother or placed in Lithuania

Ratio Decidendi

Article 56 EC Regulation 2201/2003 does not eliminate or constrict the English court’s obligation to determine the child’s best interests; it only requires consultation and consent for placement in another member state.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 9 of Hedley J’s order is deleted.
  • Agreed directions for further conduct of the case are annexed to the judgment.