Re N (Children)

In the matter of N (Children) [2016] UKSC 15 was a 2016 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that considered the relevant jurisdiction for deciding the future welfare of two young girls.

Re N
CourtSupreme Court of the United Kingdom
Full case nameIn the matter of N (Children)
Argued17 March 2016
Decided13 April 2016
Neutral citation[2016] UKSC 15
Case history
Prior history[2015] EWCA Civ 1112
Holding
Article 15 of Brussels II is not simply a question of which jurisdiction represents the most appropriate forum for a case but should also take into account what is in the best interests of the child.
Case opinions
MajorityLord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson and Lord Carnwath
Area of law
Brussels II; English family law

Facts

The parents in the case are both from Hungary and moved to the England in 2011. The mother gave birth to two girls in 2012 and 2013. Due to the extremely poor living conditions of the family the girls were removed and have since been living with foster carers. Care proceedings commenced in January 2014 and involved communication with the Hungarian Central Authority. Later in 2014 the mother moved back to Hungary and applied for the care proceedings to be transferred to Hungary on the basis of article 15 of Brussels II which allows for the transfer of proceedings to a court in another member state that is "better placed to hear the case".[1]

Judgment

High Court

The High Court held that the Hungarian court was better placed to hear the case and asked that they accept the request for a transfer of the case.[2]

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought by the Children's Guardian and the local authority.[3]

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal brought by the Children's Guardian. Lady Hale gave the only judgment and noted that the 'best interests' test in article 15 of Brussels II is not limited to questions regarding the choice of forum. The test also exists as an additional safeguard for the child in conjunction with article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.[4]

It was decided that the English courts were in as good a position as the Hungarian courts to decide the case and therefore the transfer was not necessary. Furthermore, the English courts had already heard evidence from the relevant parties and were therefore in a better position to make a judgment.[5]

See also

References
  1. EUR-Lex, Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003.
  2. [2016] UKSC 15, paragraphs 17-26.
  3. [2015] EWCA Civ 1112
  4. [2016] UKSC 15, paragraphs 41-2.
  5. [2016] UKSC 15, paragraphs 48-51.

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.