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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles

CARE PROCEEDINGS/JURISDICTION: Bridgend County Borough Council v W and Another [2012] EWHC 3118 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:34 PM
Slug : care-proceedings-jurisdiction-bridgend-county-borough-council-v-w-and-another-2012-ewhc-3118-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 6, 2012, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 101111

(Family Division, Moor J, 3 October 2012)

The mother had an extensive history of mental health difficulties, excess alcohol and illegal drug taking, she had self harmed and made suicide attempts and had several times been a psychiatric in-patient. One of her children had already been removed from her care. The mother and father formed a relationship and the mother became pregnant. The local authority were involved due to the family history and also because the parents' relationship was alleged to be volatile and aggressive and the mother was sectioned twice during the pregnancy. They failed to co-operate with the local authority and the mother continued to misuse drugs. The father was convicted of threatening to kill the social worker.

When the parents were informed that the baby would be removed from their care at birth they fled the country and travelled to Spain. The baby was born in Spain and the parents discharged her from hospital despite her needing treatment for sepsis. The Spanish authorities obtained an order to return the baby to hospital. The parents agreed a plan of intervention where they would permit the authorities into their home.

The local authority in the UK applied for an emergency protection order and arrangements were made for the child to be located. The Spanish and English authorities communicated and the Spanish authorities sought the child's removal.

The parents' relationship broke down and the father returned to the UK. In Spain the authorities removed the child from the mother's care and placed her in a children's home from where she was collected by the UK social worker. The local authority sought an interim care order which was contested by the mother who claimed the child was habitually resident in Spain and she should, therefore, be returned there, albeit to local authority care initially, she eventually sought a return to her care.

The mother failed to establish the child's habitual residence in Spain. The parents did not make a considered decision to relocate to Spain, they simply fled the country on hearing of the local authority intentions. The mother had continued to claim income support as a UK resident. The child's habitual residence followed that of the mother. The parents and, therefore, the child were on the run. The child had never stepped foot in the UK and was not habitually resident here either. However, since her removal by the authorities the child had been present in the UK and, therefore, the English court had jurisdiction. It was not in the best interests of the child to return her to Spain. If she were removed from local authority care she would be at significant risk of harm and so the court made an injunction preventing her removal from the jurisdiction.

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