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...
Latest articles
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
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...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
View all articles


Sep 29, 2018, 17:53 PM
Slug : care-habitual-residence-re-s-2010-ewca-civ-465
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 20, 2010, 05:10 AM
Article ID : 90945

(Court of Appeal; Wall LJ and Baron J; 25 March 2010)

The local authority was concerned about the serious neglect of a 7 year old child and applied for emergency protection order. The justices refused to do so as the mother had made an effort to change. The mother then took her child to Spain, where the father lived. The authority still brought care proceedings and the child was made a ward of court, with the requirement that she return to the jurisdiction. The parents complained that the child's removal to Spain was lawful and in exercise of mother's parental responsibility. The issue was whether the child had lost habitual residence in England when she was removed to Spain.

Held that the judge was entitled to assume that the child was raised in England and, therefore, was still a resident in England for the purposes of the emergency application. The judge was entitled to make the child a ward of court, and to conclude that Children Act 1989, s 100(2)(4)(a) applied and that the child was likely to suffer significant harm if the inherent jurisdiction was not exercised. The only process for the child's return, if justified, would be through a wardship.However, the order for peremptory return was not justified. The return order was a welfare decision to be taken on proper evidence, if the local authority was to exercise its statutory functions it could do so only by way of an interim care order, so the judge directed for an interim care hearing to happen swiftly.  

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