The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by a mother against an order asking the courts of England and Wales to assume jurisdiction over further child care proceedings concerning her daughter, L.W. The appeal concerned which courts should hear the case, not whether the child should remain in care or what future contact with her mother should be allowed.
The Health Service Executive brought the application under Article 15 of the EU’s Brussels II Regulation. The High Court found that L.W. had a particular connection with England and Wales, that those courts were better placed to hear further proceedings about placing her in public care, and that this was in her best interests. It asked the English and Welsh courts to assume jurisdiction within six weeks.
The mother argued that Article 15 did not apply to public law child care cases and challenged the findings about the child’s connection, the more appropriate forum and her best interests. The Supreme Court rejected those arguments. It held that Article 15 can apply to public law proceedings, including where the parties may change in the requested state.
The court said the Regulation’s five listed grounds for a child’s “particular connection” operate as alternatives. It upheld the High Court’s finding based on L.W.’s British nationality and her father’s habitual residence in England. The High Court had also found that she was entitled to Irish citizenship; that was not disputed. The Supreme Court said it was unnecessary to decide L.W.’s habitual residence.
In upholding the forum decision, the Supreme Court pointed to the evidence of the mother’s earlier involvement with English social services and courts, and the availability there of records, professionals and potential witnesses familiar with the family’s history. The judgment records that the mother disputed the significance of older material and said counselling during a prison sentence had benefited her. The High Court had not reached a final view on the underlying care issues, including whether risks had changed.
The court also noted that L.W. was in foster care in Ireland and had limited, supervised contact with her mother. It said no outcome should be predicted from the transfer request. The English and Welsh courts were being asked to take jurisdiction; the Supreme Court did not order the child’s transfer, determine custody or contact, or decide whether adoption or any other care arrangement should follow.
The Supreme Court concluded that no error had been shown in the High Court’s approach and dismissed the appeal.