The High Court has requested that the courts of England and Wales assume jurisdiction in care proceedings concerning a child identified as B.M., finding that they were better placed to hear the case and that a transfer request was in her best interests.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh on 4 October 2017, concerns an application by the Child and Family Agency (CFA) under Article 15 of the Brussels IIa Regulation. B.M. was born in Ireland in September 2015 and had lived here for the first two years of her life. At the time of the hearing, she was in foster care in the north west of Ireland. The application was opposed by her mother, identified as S.L.
The court considered whether England and Wales had a particular connection with the child, whether its courts were better placed to hear the care proceedings, and whether a transfer request would be in the child’s best interests. It found that England was one of B.M.’s nationalities, meeting the Regulation’s particular-connection criterion. The court also noted that her extended family lived in England and that English social services and courts had prior experience with the family. Relevant evidence and witnesses were now spread across both jurisdictions, but the judge concluded that, on balance, the English courts were better placed.
On the child’s welfare, the court considered evidence that B.M. had a secure attachment to her current foster mother, alongside evidence that the foster carers were not in a position to care for her long term. The judge said the likely loss of that attachment would cause some loss, but that the impact would depend partly on how a move was managed. The court found that an appropriately managed transition would matter whether B.M.’s eventual long-term carer was in Ireland or England. It also noted that placement with her paternal uncle and his wife in England was not guaranteed, though the prospect of sibling contact would be slimmer if she remained in an Irish placement.
S.L. opposed the request, citing her relationship with B.M. and concern that she might lose access if the child moved. The judge said the expert evidence before the court indicated that reduced or temporarily lost contact would not be psychologically detrimental to B.M., while recognising that it would distress her mother. The court declined to assume that the courts of England and Wales would fail to protect S.L.’s legal rights of access if access were granted later.
The order is a request for another jurisdiction to assume responsibility for the proceedings. It does not decide B.M.’s final placement or make a final care order. The judge granted the relief sought by the CFA.