London Borough of Islington v R
2014
FAMILY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MRS JUSTICE PAUFFLEY
Areas of Law
- Family Law
2014
FAMILY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The English court considered whether to transfer jurisdiction in the case of an infant, J, to the Hungarian court under Article 15 of Brussels II Revised (BIIR). Both parents, Hungarian nationals, have a history of chronic neglect regarding their children. The court concluded that given J's connections to Hungary and the presence of her siblings there, the Hungarian court would be better positioned to handle the case, serving the child's best interests.
Judgment
Mrs Justice Pauffley:
Introduction
In every care case with a European dimension, the judge must consider whether to exercise her powers under Article 15 of Brussels II Revised (BIIR) to request the court of another Member State to assume jurisdiction where (a) the child has a particular connection (as defined in Article 15(3)) with that other State, (b) the other court would be better placed to hear the case, and (c) this is in the best interests of the child: see In the matter of E (A Child) [2014] EWHC 6 at § 31.
In these care proceedings, 27 October had been designated as a judicial reading day. In unusual circumstances, I became the allocated judge at the final hearing but without prior involvement, save for assisting the Clerk of the Rules with a listing difficulty in the middle of last week.
Arising out of my anxiety as to whether Article 15 considerations had been or would be featuring sufficiently prominently, I asked Counsel to appear briefly at 2 o’clock on 27 October. The indications from the papers were that although in earlier times there had been active debate as to whether an Article 15 transfer request should issue, more recently no party had been suggesting anything other than final determination by the English court.
On Monday afternoon, the indications from Counsel were positive. All accepted there was a need to confront and determine the issue as a preliminary matter. I reiterate my gratitude to them for voluntarily supplying, at very short notice, excellent Skeleton Arguments. Those documents resulted in a much shorter hearing than otherwise would have been the case.
Background
The brief background is this. J is an infant born, in the UK, in November 2013. Her mother R is a Hungarian national; so, too, her father N. Currently, both are in London. The father is homeless. If she were not occupying a mother and baby foster home with J, the mother also would be homeless.
J has three siblings. There is an older brother, T, born of her mother’s relationship with H (also a Hungarian national); T is 13 years old. He lives with his maternal grandmother in Hungary. A is T’s younger sister. She is 8 and in the care of Hungarian Children’s Services. The mother’s third child is L. She is 3 years old. Her father is N. L is also in the care of Hungarian Children’s Services and, like A, subject to ongoing proceedings.
Hungarian Children’s Services had involvement with the family in 2012 arising out of what was said to be longstand