F (Habitual Residence)
2014
FAMILY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PETER JACKSON
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
FAMILY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Amanda, taken by her father from Zimbabwe to the US and then to England, was placed in foster care after her father's citizenship application. The Court of Appeal remitted the jurisdiction issue, suspecting improper jurisdiction. The father argued Amanda was habitually resident in the US. The High Court found she had no habitual residence when proceedings began, thus granting jurisdiction to English courts based on her presence under Article 13 BIIR.
JUDGMENT
IMPORTANT NOTICE
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the persons concerned must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
Mr Justice Peter Jackson:
These care proceedings concern Amanda, who will soon be seven years old. For the first three years of her life, she lived with her parents and older siblings in Zimbabwe. In September 2010, she was taken by her father to the United States and, after many intervening events, to this country in November 2012. Shortly after her arrival, she was removed from her father's care by the local authority and interim care orders have been in force since January 2013. Amanda is now in foster care. She has not seen her mother or siblings since she left Zimbabwe. The parents, who are separated, each seek her return to their care.
By the middle of 2013, plans for Amanda's future were, as might be expected, far advanced. Her father had for most of that year disengaged from the proceedings but by December he had reinstructed solicitors and in February 2014 lodged an appeal, submitting that the English courts had been exercising jurisdiction improperly and that at the time the proceedings began in December 2012, Amanda had been habitually resident in the United States. On 19 May 2014, the Court of Appeal allowed his appeal. It held that the issue had not yet been properly considered and, making no finding about the matter, remitted the issue of jurisdiction to this court see Re F (a child) [2014] EWCA Civ 789 .
The questions that I therefore have to answer are:
Was Amanda habitually resident in England and Wales when the proceedings began?
If not, whether she habitually resident in any other country?
If the answer to the first question is ‘yes’, this court will have general jurisdiction on the basis of habitual residence (Article 8 of Brussels II Revised). If the answer to both questions is ‘no’ this court will have residual jurisdiction on the basis of Amanda’s presence (Article 13). If the answer to the first question is ‘no’ and the second question ‘yes’, this court will have no continuing jurisdiction and its powers will be limited to provisional, protective measure