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
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
Lockdown 2: how does it affect child contact?
No sooner had clarity been obtained as to how child contact would work within and across the tier system, than the government announced its suspension in England.  From 5 November 2020, a 4-week...
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...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
View all articles


Sep 29, 2018, 17:29 PM
Slug : contact-jurisdiction-re-m
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 23, 2010, 11:15 AM
Article ID : 91225

(Family Division;  Mrs Justice Parker ; 2 July 2010)

The father issued an application for contact with the child. The mother opposed the application and further stated that the child was habitually resident in Portugal, residing with the maternal grandparents. Both parents continued to reside in England. The father did not have parental responsibility and had not been consulted about the relocation.

The Court found pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (Brussels II), that the child was habitually resident in Portugal and dismissed the father's application on grounds of jurisdiction.

The Court further stated that the law as stated in Re S (Parental responsibility) [1998] 2 FLR 921 that an application for Parental Responsibility could still be made to the domestic Courts, despite it not having jurisdiction as regards to s.8 Children Act 1989 Orders was no longer good law as Article 1 of ‘Brussels II' included the ‘attribution' of parental responsibility. Accordingly the Court did not retain any residual decision making powers in relation to the child.


Family Law Reports

Family Law Reports are relied upon by the judiciary, barristers and solicitors and the reports are cited daily in court and in judgments.

They contain verbatim case reports of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European courts case, and also includes practice directions, covering the whole range of family law, public and private child law.

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