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
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Will government vouchers prove a game-changer for family mediation?
Analysis of data to evaluate the government’s £500 family mediation voucher scheme is in full swing. It’s not yet complete but, as the initiative nears an end, the signs appear...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
Recently, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making misogyny a...
Guidance on allocation and gatekeeping for public children proceedings to remain in place
On 5 June 2020, the President of the Family Division made two amendments to his Guidance on Allocation and Gatekeeping for Care, Supervision and other Proceedings under Part IV of the Children...
Key challenges and the role of the family advisor in facilitating a successful succession plan
Kelly Noel-Smith, Private Client Partner, Forsters LLPRosie Schumm, Family Partner, Forsters LLPAnna Ferster, Family Associate, Forsters LLPHow best to pass on wealth to the next generation is a...
View all articles


Sep 29, 2018, 21:02 PM
Slug : care-proceedings-permission-to-remove-child-from-the-jurisdiction-kent-county-council-v-pa-k-and-ia-a-child-2013-ewhc-578-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 21, 2013, 02:38 AM
Article ID : 101917

(Family Division, Pauffley J, 15 March 2013)

The local authority sought permission to place the 4-year-old child with carers in the USA who had also adopted the child's older half sister. The family lived in the USA due to the man's employment but they remained domiciled in England and Wales.

At an earlier hearing a declaration of the couple's domicile was made and they were pronounced eligible to adopt the child pursuant to s 49 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The alternative option was for them to apply for a Hague adoption. However, neither route was available in order to create an adoption that would be legally binding in the USA. The latter would not be available until the couple became US citizens and they would only become eligible in 2014. It was, therefore, urgent and vital to find a way of placing the child with the couple until they could apply under the Hague Convention.

As the couple were registered foster carers it was possible to place the child with them pursuant to the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010. Regulation 12 explicitly referred to arrangements to place children outside the jurisdiction. Pursuant to s 42(2) of the ACA 2002 the child had to be placed with prospective adopters at least 10 weeks prior to the adoption application, ECC (The Local Authority) v SM was authority for the proposition that the 10 weeks could be spent outside the jurisdiction. A longer period could be permissible providing the English court retained jurisdiction and the child remained habitually residence in this jurisdiction.

As a result of the shared intention of the local authority and the couple the child would remain habitually resident in England and Wales either by virtue of the disregard provision in s 105(6) of the Children Act 1989 and/or on the fact that the local authority has no settled intention that the child should live in the USA.

Permission to remove the child to the USA under s 28 of the Adoption and Children Act 1989 was granted. 


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