Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
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,...
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...
Focusing on behaviour and attitudes of separating parents
I am sure that if this year's Family Law Awards were an in-person event as usual, rather than this year’s virtual occasion, much of the chatter among family law professionals would be...
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