Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
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