The High Court has asked the courts of England and Wales to accept jurisdiction in care proceedings concerning a baby identified as “L.T.” The request, made on 19 March 2015, followed the Irish court’s finding that England and Wales was best placed to hear the case. It did not determine the child’s future care.
In a judgment delivered on 26 March 2015, Ms Justice Bronagh O’Hanlon considered an application by the Child and Family Agency to transfer the public law proceedings. The court relied on Article 15 of EU Regulation 2201/2003, which allows a case to be transferred where the child has a particular connection to another member state, that court is better placed to hear it, and transfer is in the child’s best interests.
The judge found that the child was British by descent and that the defendants’ habitual residence remained in England and Wales. She also found that the child had been effectively abandoned in Ireland since January 2015. The judgment records that the parents, who are British citizens, came to Ireland before the child’s birth in circumstances where care proceedings in England were anticipated. The court said the child’s nationality and the parents’ habitual residence supported transfer under Article 15.
The judgment recounts the Agency’s concerns about the first defendant’s health, medication and parenting capacity, and the history of other children being taken into care in the United Kingdom. These were submissions and affidavit evidence described in the judgment, rather than findings made in this transfer decision. The court also recorded that the parents did not enter an appearance or attend the High Court proceedings, despite service by email being authorised and an affidavit of service filed.
The guardian ad litem’s counsel submitted that the child could be considered habitually resident in Ireland because she was born there and had never been in England and Wales. The court ultimately found that her habitual residence was England and Wales, following its finding that the parents’ habitual residence had not changed. It noted that the child’s current foster placement was meeting her needs, while access to extended family and the availability of evidence favoured having the care proceedings heard in England and Wales.
The court requested that the courts of England and Wales accept jurisdiction. It also lifted the in-camera rule to allow relevant materials to be provided to the parties in England, the English and Welsh High Court and their solicitors. Costs were reserved to 7 May 2015, with liberty to apply. The source does not establish whether the requested court accepted jurisdiction or what later care orders were made.