The District Court stayed child care proceedings concerning a baby while the Child and Family Agency seeks to have a court in another European jurisdiction assume jurisdiction under Article 15 of Council Regulation 2201/2003.
In an order dated 18 January 2019, Judge Rosemary Horgan found that the other jurisdiction had a particular connection to the child and that a transfer could provide added value in deciding the substantive issues. The court said the evidence about both parents’ capacity to care for the child, and the relevant witnesses, were in that jurisdiction. The mother was a national of it, and the Guardian ad Litem considered it was in the child’s best interests for care arrangements to be decided before the child developed attachments to primary carers.
The judgment records that the child was born in November 2019 and was about 10 weeks old. It also says the court had made an interim care order on 3 December 2018 and extended it on 21 December 2018. Those dates and the stated age and birth date appear inconsistent in the source.
The court had previously found it was properly seized of the case under Article 13, based on the child’s presence and birth in this jurisdiction. The Agency argued that the other jurisdiction was better placed, citing the location of professional witnesses and documents, the child’s nationality, the mother’s nationality, the father’s refugee status and tenancy there, and the parents’ receipt of disability payments there. The judgment says the parents no longer objected to transfer but did not consent to an order.
The court stayed the proceedings so the Agency could make a formal request inviting the other jurisdiction’s courts to assume jurisdiction. The request was to be made within six weeks of the order being perfected. If those courts declined or did not indicate willingness within six weeks, the District Court said it would continue to exercise jurisdiction. The Section 17 and Section 18 proceedings were stayed pending determination of the request and are to be re-entered before the court to determine the balance of the enquiry.
The order did not itself transfer jurisdiction or decide the substantive care issues. The source refers to a separate European jurisdiction but does not name it.