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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles
Authors

BRUSSELS II REVISED: Kent County Council v IS & Ors [2013] EWHC 2308 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:11 PM
Slug : brussels-ii-revised-kent-county-council-v-is-and-ors-2013-ewhc-2308-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 8, 2013, 02:39 AM
Article ID : 103285

(Family Division, Theis J, 3 May 2013)

The Roma Slovakian family were trafficked to the UK. The parents had 10 children and five of the youngest six were subject to care proceedings due to a combination of factors including: failure to attend medical appointments, poor school attendance, neglect and over chastisement.

The parents claimed they were being discriminated against because of their heritage and sought a return of their children, four of whom were now in foster care. Or alternatively they wished for the children to be returned to Slovakia under the care of the authorities under Art 56 of BIIR. They did not seek a transfer under Art 15. The local authority sought a supervision order in relation to the oldest child who was 15 and had remained living with the parents, and care orders in relation to the younger four children with a care plan for adoption for the youngest two.

At the final hearing the Republic of Slovakia had been provided with the case bundles and while it accepted the jurisdiction of the English court it demanded that in the event that the parents could not resume care of the children, that they be returned to Slovakia and placed in State care.

The judge took into account the cultural factors and weighed the evidence of the parents but found the evidence of the local authority and the guardian to be preferred. She found the threshold had been met and that the welfare of the children required care orders.

After considering the proposal from the Slovak authorities she concluded that the move would not meet their welfare needs as the plans were uncertain with no timescales and the potential for further emotional harm given that the older two children did not wish to go and the younger two had no recollection of Slovakia.

 

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