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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles
Authors

Re X and Y [2016] EWHC 2271 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:16 PM
The President held that the English court did not have jurisdiction to make a secure accommodation order for placement of a child in Scotland.
Slug : re-x-and-y-2016-ewhc-2271-fam
Meta Title : Re X and Y [2016] EWHC 2271 (Fam)
Meta Keywords : Public law children – Secure accommodation – Jurisdiction – Placement of child in Scotland
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 21, 2016, 07:48 AM
Article ID : 114546
(Family Division, Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division, 12 September 2016)

Public law children – Secure accommodation – Jurisdiction – Placement of child in Scotland

The President held that the English court did not have jurisdiction to make a secure accommodation order for placement of a child in Scotland.


X and Y, who were 16 and 15 respectively, were subject to care proceedings. When their behaviour deteriorated applications were made to place them in secure accommodation. No places were available in England and, therefore, the applications were for placement in Scotland. It fell to be determined whether a judge sitting in England could make an order under s 25 of the Children Act 1989 for a child to be placed in a unit in Scotland. If not, whether the court could exercise the inherent parens patriae jurisdiction of the High Court. In either case, the question arose of whether such an order could be recognised and enforced in Scotland.

The President held that a judge in England could not make an order under s 25 for the child to be placed in Scotland. However, in principle, a judge could exercise the inherent jurisdiction and order the placement of a child in secure accommodation in Scotland providing the substantive and procedural requirements of Art 5 of the European Convention were complied with.

It was clear that none of the legislative provision provided for the recognition and enforcement in Scotland of an order made by a judge sitting in England under the inherent parents patriae jurisdiction.

In the circumstances of this case, the only option was for an application to be made by the relevant local authorities to the Scottish Court of Sessions seeking to invoke the nobile officium. Following a decision, the matter could be listed again to determine what should be done in light of the Scottish court's decision.

Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 2271 (Fam)
Case numbers omitted

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Date: 12 September 2016

Before :


SIR JAMES MUNBY
PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION


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


In the Matter of X (A Child)
In the Matter of Y (A Child)


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


Ms Julia Cheetham QC and Mr Michael Jones (instructed by the local authorities) for Cumbria County Council and Blackpool Borough Council
Mr Simon Rowbotham (instructed by Denby & Co) for X’s guardian
Ms Susan Grocott QC and Ms Rebecca Gregg (instructed by Gaynham King & Mellor) for X
Ms Susan Grocott QC and Ms Alison Woodward (instructed by Cooper Nimmo) for Y’s guardian


Hearing dates: 28 July, 1 September 2016


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

Re X and Y [2016] EWHC 2271 (Fam)

Judgment Approved
Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Public Law Children
Tags :
FLR
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from