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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
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....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
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