Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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