The High Court has begun the process of asking courts in England and Wales to assume jurisdiction over child care proceedings concerning J.A., a child born in Dublin in March 2013. The court found that those courts were better placed to hear the case and that doing so would be in the child’s best interests. It did not decide the underlying care proceedings or order a transfer of jurisdiction; the request must be considered by the courts in England and Wales.
The Health Service Executive (HSE) applied under Article 15 of EU Regulation 2201/2003. J.A.’s mother, M.A., supported the application. His father, S.S., had notice of the proceedings but did not participate; a solicitor who had consulted him said they had been unable to obtain instructions. A guardian ad litem appointed for J.A. also supported the request.
J.A. was born at Dublin’s Rotunda Hospital on 1 March 2013. The HSE obtained an emergency care order from the Dublin District Court on 8 March, and J.A. was placed in foster care. Interim care orders followed. The parents had access five days a week for a period.
The parents had travelled from England and Wales to Ireland shortly before the birth and returned to Britain on 24 March, according to information given to the court by M.A.’s counsel. The HSE had received concerns from the hospital and contacted an English local authority that had worked with both parents over many years. The judgment recounts that authority’s concerns and prior child protection history, including a pre-birth assessment begun in January 2013. The judge said the parents’ departure appeared intended to frustrate the local authority’s actions, while also observing that it could be seen as an effort to improve their chances of caring for their unborn child.
Under the regulation, the court considered whether J.A. had a particular connection with England and Wales, whether those courts were better placed to hear the case, and whether that arrangement served the child’s best interests. The judge found a connection because England was the parents’ habitual residence and because, on information before him, J.A. was a British national by descent. He noted that an affidavit confirming the nationality position was expected.
The judge said the parents and potential witnesses were in England, including local authority staff and doctors who had assessed M.A. He also noted that proceedings there could allow consideration of contact with J.A.’s half-sibling and extended family, depending on later decisions by the competent authorities. The HSE social work team and guardian ad litem unanimously supported seeking the other courts’ agreement.
The court directed that the request be pursued through the central authorities and sought assistance from the liaison judge and international judicial network. It also requested an undertaking from the HSE to advance the request and seek directions in England and Wales. The judgment records that the HSE had already contacted legal representatives in London.