Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Perspectives on civil partnerships and marriages in England and Wales: aspects, attitudes and assessments
IntroductionThis article considers the developments since the turn of the century in the provision of new options for same sex and opposite sex couples to formalise their unions with full legal...
Family Law journal - take the survey and you could win £50 worth of vouchers
Do you subscribe to Family Law journal?Our aim is to provide all subscribers of Family Law with compelling, insightful and helpful content that you enjoy reading and find useful in your...
Commencement date of 6 April 2022 announced for the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020
The Ministry of Justice has announced that the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020), which received Royal Assent on 25 June 2020, will now have a commencement date of 6 April 2022....
HMCTS blog highlights the use of video hearing due to COVID-19
HM Courts & Tribunals Service has published a blog detailing the impacts of coronavirus (COVID-19) on hearings. Pre-pandemic, HMCTS states that the use of video technology for live participation...
View all articles
Authors

JURISDICTION: T v T (Jurisdiction) [2012] EWHC 2877 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:37 PM
Slug : jurisdiction-t-v-t-jurisdiction-2012-ewhc-2877-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 7, 2013, 10:28 AM
Article ID : 101303

(Family Division, Roderic Wood J, 6 August 2012)

The two children, now aged 9 and 6, were made subject to a shared residence and the mother was granted permission to relocate to Ireland. Provision was made for the father to have contact with the children during school holidays but when the father's behaviour at handovers became critical of the mother and her family the mother ceased to permit contact. The father brought enforcement proceedings and submitted that the children should relocate to live with him in England. However, as a preliminary issue the court was asked to determine which jurisdiction would be more appropriate to deal with the matter.

It was now accepted by all parties that the children were habitually resident in Ireland not England and Wales. The mother had a new partner with whom she had one child and was pregnant again. The child's lives were enmeshed in Ireland.

Pursuant to Art 8 of Brussels II Revised general jurisdiction in relation to matters of parental responsibility lay with the Member State in which the child was habitually resident. However, by virtue of Art 12 the children retained a substantial connection with England and Wales and the jurisdiction had already been accepted by the mother.

Given that the history of litigation was in this jurisdiction, that due to concessions made during the hearing, it now appeared that the issue was a narrow one, namely the reinstatement of the previous contact arrangements, and that the same judge and Cafcass officer would be able to hear the case, it was appropriate for the case to remain within the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

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