Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

BIIR, ART 15: Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council v K [2013] EWHC 3192 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:51 PM
Slug : biir-art-15-walsall-metropolitan-borough-council-v-k-2013-ewhc-3192-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 30, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 103925

(Family Division, Holman J, 7 October 2013)

The Slovakian parents were trafficked from Slovakia to the UK and thereafter had three children in the UK. The three children were all removed from the parents' care and placed in a foster placement together while the parents sought a return of them to their care.

The local authority submitted that the parents were not capable either separately or together to parent the children and therefore the threshold had been crossed. Consideration was given to whether the children could be placed with family in Slovakia where their three older siblings lived. However, it became clear that due to issues with accommodation the paternal grandmother could not offer the children a home and there was no other family member who would be able to do so either.

During proceedings the International Legal Protection of Children and Youth Centre in Slovakia applied to the English court for a transfer of proceedings pursuant to Art 15 of BIIR.

In considering whether Slovakia was a better forum to determine the issues, the parents had lived in the UK since 2007 and all of the evidence existed in England. The current foster carers had indicated that if an adoptive placement was not found for the children then they would seek to care for them long term. That was the local authority's current care plan.

The Art 15 application was refused. If it were determined that the parents could not care for the children and if they had no alternative placement then very active consideration would be given to transferring the proceedings to Slovakia. But that was not the case here. The children would either be returned to the parents or remain living with foster carers with whom they had been living with for the last 18 months. It was not in their best interests to allow the application. 

 

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from