Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles

RESIDENCE: Re L (Residence: Jurisdiction) [2006] EWHC 3374 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:31 PM
Slug : re-l-residence-jurisdiction-2006-ewhc-3374-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 21, 2006, 09:29 AM
Article ID : 87967

(Family Division; Sumner J; 21 December 2006)

One of the two children had been born in the UK, the other had been born after the parent's separation in the mother's country of origin, Panama. The father had eventually abandoned his application for a residence order in relation to the eldest child, and by agreement the eldest child had left England to join the mother and the younger brother in Panama. The agreement was embodied in a consent order which included permission to the mother to remove the elder child from the jurisdiction, and arrangements for contact between the father and both children; it also provided for a review of the contact arrangements almost a year later. In the divorce proceedings a decree nisi had been granted, but not a decree absolute; the outstanding issue was the financial relief settlement. Before the review date the father sought a residence order in relation to both children, because of concerns about the elder child's lack of progress in Panama.

There was always a residual jurisdiction in relation to a child who had been resident in England but who was in the care of a parent resident abroad with the recent consent of the other parent, but the circumstances in which that jurisdiction would be exercised would be very limited. Otherwise, as neither child was habitually resident in the UK, the court had jurisdiction only if the father's application arose in or in connection with matrimonial proceedings. Although the matrimonial proceedings were continuing, the children's element had already been decided. It was not appropriate to reopen that issue within a year, although the court would have jurisdiction if an urgent and serious issue arose over child protection. It would be wrong to permit the father to reopen the question of residence within the English jurisdiction unless there were compelling grounds to do so. There were no such compelling grounds. The court's power to vary its own orders was to be used sparingly in the international context where the issues had been resolved and implemented and jurisdiction passed to another State. England was not the appropriate forum for determining residence issues in this case.

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