In the Matter of D (A Child)

Registration of a foreign child maintenance order under the 2007 Hague Convention gives the respondent a right of appeal to the Family Court. Any further appeal is governed by domestic law. The Convention’s implementing legislation and rules do not abolish that further right. Where the first appeal was from two or three lay magistrates, the further appeal lies to a circuit judge. Registration and enforcement proceedings must be handled expeditiously. A further appeal does not stay enforcement unless exceptional circumstances exist. The applicable appeal route depends on the legal regime under which registration was actually sought and effected.

A United States child maintenance order was registered in England and Wales after an application made under the 2007 Hague Convention. The father appealed from the registration, but the Family Court sitting at Leyland dismissed that appeal. The Family Court sitting at Blackpool then dismissed his further appeal without a hearing, holding that there was no right of appeal under the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 or the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (United States of America) Order 2007. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the registration had proceeded under the 2007 Convention and whether domestic law provided a further appeal.

Appeal allowed unanimously. The order of the Family Court sitting at Blackpool was set aside and the father’s appeal from the Leyland Order was remitted for rehearing.

1. The application for enforcement and the registration of the Elbert County Order had proceeded under the 2007 Hague Convention. The Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 and the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (United States of America) Order 2007 were therefore inapplicable. The Judge was wrong to treat them as governing the appeal.
2. Article 23(5) of the Convention provides a right to challenge or appeal from registration on fact and law. Article 23(1) makes recognition and enforcement procedures subject to the law of the State addressed, thereby leaving any further appeal to domestic law.
3. The domestic appeal scheme supplied that further appeal. The implementing regulations provided the initial appeal from the court officer to the Family Court. Section 31K of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, read with the Access to Justice (Destination of Appeals) (Family Proceedings) Order 2014 and the Family Court (Composition and Distribution of Business) Rules 2014, provided an appeal to a circuit judge from the decision of two or three justices of the peace.
4. Registration and enforcement proceedings should be dealt with expeditiously under article 23(11). A further appeal does not stay enforcement absent exceptional circumstances under article 23(10). The Court invited consideration by the President of the Family Division and the Family Procedure Rules Committee of whether the absence of a permission filter may impede that obligation.

The rehearing was to be allocated to a circuit judge and listed as soon as practicable.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal allowed. The father’s appeal from the Leyland Order was remitted for rehearing.
2. Family Court sitting at Blackpool: On 14 June 2021, dismissed the father’s appeal without a hearing, holding that there was no jurisdiction or right of appeal.
3. Family Court sitting at Leyland: On 29 April 2021, dismissed the father’s appeal from registration of the United States maintenance order.
4. Maintenance Enforcement Business Centre: Registered the Elbert County maintenance order on 28 June 2019.