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


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