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...
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

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