14
(1)
The court has jurisdiction in relation to an application under paragraph 1 in respect of a child if any of the following persons are habitually resident or domiciled in England and Wales on the date of the application—
(a)
a parent of the child;
(b)
a guardian or special guardian of the child;
(c)
a person who is named in a child arrangements order as a person with whom the child is to live;
(d)
the child.
(2)
The court has jurisdiction in relation to an application under paragraph 2 if the applicant or a parent against whom the order is sought or made is habitually resident or domiciled in England and Wales on the date of the application.
Cases considering Schedule 1, paragraph 14 6
[2004] EWCA Civ 1685 · 9 November 2004Interprets
Paragraph 14 is not a comprehensive jurisdictional provision for every case in which the child is outside England and Wales. It identifies a particular jurisdiction and does not exclude other Schedule 1 applications (see paras [11]; [18]; [21]; [30]; [34]).
The Court read paragraph 14(1) as covering financial provision where a parent in England and Wales pays for a child living abroad with another authorised carer. It did not read the provision as an exclusive limitation on jurisdiction (see paras [11]; [21]; [30]).
The reference to a child living abroad with another parent formed part of the particular circumstances addressed by paragraph 14(1). The Court did not treat that category as an exhaustive definition of Schedule 1 jurisdiction (see paras [11]; [21]; [30]).
The reference to a child living abroad with a guardian formed part of the specific jurisdiction addressed by paragraph 14(1). It did not impliedly exclude applications in other circumstances (see paras [11]; [21]; [30]).
The reference to a person holding a residence order formed part of paragraph 14(1)’s particular jurisdictional setting. The Court declined to treat it as an exhaustive condition for all Schedule 1 applications concerning children abroad (see paras [11]; [21]; [30]).
The extension of references to paragraph 1(2) powers to orders made by virtue of paragraph 14(1) did not make paragraph 14 an exclusive definition of jurisdiction (see paras [11]; [21]).
[2011] EWHC 2425 (Fam) · 5 August 2011Limits
Limits the specific statutory jurisdiction where one parent lives in England and Wales and the child lives outside the jurisdiction with another specified person. It does not displace the alternative jurisdictional grounds considered in this case. (see paras [20], [41]–[43])
[2010] EWHC 1754 (Fam) · 13 July 2010Interprets
By analogy with paragraph 14, the court held that an expressly stated jurisdiction did not necessarily cater exclusively for every circumstance in which financial provision could be made under Schedule 1. (see paras [26]-[27]; [50]; [60])
What each judgment says about Schedule 1, paragraph 14 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.