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
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
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...
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,...
View all articles
Authors

Re D (A Child) (International Recognition) [2016] EWCA Civ 12

Sep 29, 2018, 22:48 PM
Enforcement – Recognition – Romanian order – BIIR, Art 23 – Whether the child had been given the opportunity to be heard – Whether the mother had been served with the application to transfer custody
The father’s appeal from a decision denying recognition of the Romanian order transferring custody of the child to him was dismissed.
Slug : re-d-a-child-international-recognition-2016-ewca-civ-12
Meta Title : Re D (A Child) (International Recognition) [2016] EWCA Civ 12
Meta Keywords : Enforcement – Recognition – Romanian order – BIIR, Art 23 – Whether the child had been given the opportunity to be heard – Whether the mother had been served with the application to transfer custody
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 10, 2016, 06:32 AM
Article ID : 116949
(Court of Appeal, Moore-Bick, Ryder, Briggs LJJ, 27 January 2016)

[The judicially approved judgment and accompanying headnote has now published in Family Law Reports [2016] 2 FLR 347]

Enforcement – Recognition – Romanian order – BIIR, Art 23 – Whether the child had been given the opportunity to be heard – Whether the mother had been served with the application to transfer custody

The father’s appeal from a decision denying recognition of the Romanian order transferring custody of the child to him was dismissed.


The 9-year-old child had lived in England with his Romanian mother since shortly after his birth. His father lived in Romania but he spent substantial periods of time in England and had regular contact with the child. Litigation in Romania resulted in interim orders being made which provided for the child dividing his time equally between the parents in England.

The Romanian court ordered a transfer of custody to the father. The order was recognised and registered in England. The mother appealed to the High Court seeking a denial of recognition and enforcement of the Romanian order in reliance of Art 23 (a)-(d) of BIIR and based upon the facts that the child had spent the vast majority of his life in England and he spoke only very little Romanian.

The guardian supported non-recognition on the basis that the child had not been given the opportunity to be heard in the proceedings and that recognition would be contrary to public policy taking into account the child's best interests. The mother's appeal was allowed under Art 23(b) and also Art 23(c) on the ground that the mother had not been served with the father's application for a transfer of custody and that she, therefore, had not been able to present a defence. Pursuant to Ar 23(d) the mother had also not been given the opportunity to be heard in the recognition proceedings. The father appealed.

The appeal was dismissed.

The decision of whether a child should be involved in litigation was one for the courts, not the parents. In some cases the welfare implications of a child being involved might necessitate the child being excluded from the proceedings. The failure to hear the child in this instance constituted a violation of a fundamental principle and s 1(3)(a) of the Children Act 1989.

Case No: B4/2014/2790 & B4/2014/2790(B)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT
Mr. Justice Peter Jackson[2014] EWHC 2756

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Date: 27/01/2016

Before:

LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK
Vice President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
LORD JUSTICE RYDER
and
LORD JUSTICE BRIGGS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In the Matter of D (A Child) (International Recognition)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr. David Williams QC and Ms. Jacqueline Renton (instructed by Wedlake Bell LLP) for the Father
Mr. James Turner QC and Mr. Edward Devereux (instructed by Osbornes) for the Mother
Mr. Nicholas Anderson (instructed by Cafcass Legal) for the Child
Mr. Henry Setright QC and Mr. Michael Gration (instructed by Dawson Cornwell) for Reunite Child Abduction Centre

Hearing date: 20 May 2015

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re D (A Child) (International Recognition) [2016] EWCA Civ 12

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