B (A Child), Re

Wardship and a return order should not continue where the child has lived for a substantial period in another country in an apparently settled environment, the English court’s continuing intervention has doubtful practical value, and the applicant’s connection with the child is limited. Relevant considerations include the child’s habitual residence, the applicant’s parental responsibility and relationship with the child, the passage of time, and the likely consequences of returning the child for a hearing. Where continued English jurisdiction is no longer appropriate, the applicant should pursue any available remedies in the country where the child is living.

The applicant sought to make a child a ward of court and secure her return to England and Wales. An earlier order made the child a ward and required the mother to return her, although the mother had not been engaged in the proceedings at that stage.

The mother and child had travelled to Pakistan and had remained there for about eight months. Through emails, the mother indicated that she had established a settled life there and did not wish to return. The applicant had never seen the child, was not named on the birth certificate, had never been married to the mother and did not have parental responsibility. The central issue was whether the English court should continue to exercise jurisdiction or maintain the return obligation.

1. The proceedings were brought to an end. It was no longer appropriate for the child to remain a ward of the English court or for the mother to remain subject to the order requiring the child’s return.
2. In deciding whether continued intervention was appropriate, the court considered that the applicant had never seen the child, was not named on the birth certificate, had not been lawfully married to the mother and had no parental responsibility.
3. The court also considered it doubtful, without deciding the issue, that the child remained habitually resident in England and Wales when the proceedings began. The child had lived in Pakistan for approximately eight months, a significant period in the life of a child not yet two years old, and appeared to be living with the mother in a settled environment.
4. Continuing to exert jurisdiction over the child and mother from England would serve a very doubtful purpose. Even if the child were returned for a hearing, the mother would probably be permitted to return with her to Pakistan.
5. If the applicant wished to pursue proceedings or remedies, he would have to do so in Pakistan, where the child was living. The court expressed sympathy for his position on the assumption that he was the father, but made no finding on paternity or the allegations of abuse.