Coventry City Council v A

A child’s habitual residence is determined by the facts, with particular attention to the child’s integration in a social and family environment. A court with jurisdiction should transfer proceedings under Article 15 only where the statutory conditions are met and transfer is in the child’s best interests. In adoption proceedings, the court must require clear and properly analysed evidence, including proper enquiries into family alternatives. The child’s welfare is paramount, but the child’s interests must be balanced against the confidentiality and Article 8 rights of the mother and other family members. Any further enquiries should be strictly time limited where delay may prejudice the child.

The local authority sought care and placement orders for a premature Romanian child who had been born in England and had remained there in foster care. The mother had expressed a wish that the child be adopted in the United Kingdom, then disappeared. The father’s identity was unknown. Romanian authorities sought the child’s repatriation but did not provide a clear care plan or timetable.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction under Articles 8 and 13 of Brussels II (Revised), whether the proceedings should be transferred to Romania under Article 15, and whether further enquiries should be made of the maternal and possible paternal families despite the mother’s request for confidentiality.

1. Jurisdiction. The court had jurisdiction under Article 8 of Brussels II (Revised). Habitual residence was a question of fact, informed by the child’s integration in a social and family environment. The child had been born in England, had never left, and was settled with her foster carers. Article 13 would provide an alternative basis if habitual residence could not be established.
2. Article 15 transfer. The conditions for transfer were not met. There had been no application by a party, no application from a Romanian court, and no acceptance of transfer by a party. In any event, Romania was not better placed to determine the matter and transfer would not be in the child’s best interests. The evidence did not identify where or when the child would be placed, what care would be provided, or how long the proceedings would take. Removal from settled carers would create unacceptable uncertainty and delay.
3. Adoption and enquiries. Adoption required clear and properly analysed evidence addressing all realistic options. The court had a duty to ensure that proper enquiries had been made into the child’s family. The child’s welfare was paramount under the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption of Children Act 2002, but the court also had to consider the mother’s confidentiality and the Article 8 rights of the child, mother and other family members.
4. The child’s interests justified one further attempt to investigate the maternal family, any identifiable father, and Romanian child-care arrangements. Those enquiries had to be strictly time limited. If they could not be completed promptly, the English proceedings were to be concluded without further indefinite delay.

The proceedings were issued in the Family Proceedings Court, transferred to Coventry County Court, and subsequently considered at hearings before Mrs Justice King and Mr Justice Wood. The matter was then heard at first instance by Mrs Justice Hogg in the High Court (Family Division).