C v D (Jurisdiction Based on Nationality)
[2023] EWHC 1251 (Fam)
C v D (No 2) (2007 Hague Convention)
27 February 2024
[2024] EWFC 36
Family Court
A dad challenged a US court order for child support in the UK. The UK court could only look at specific reasons to overturn the US order. The dad claimed the US court made mistakes and cheated. The UK court said there wasn't enough evidence to do that, and the dad still has to pay.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against registration of a US maintenance order (Feb 2019) made by the Elbert County District Court, Colorado.
- •Original appeal heard by Leyland Magistrates and refused; further appeals reached the Court of Appeal, which remitted the case for rehearing.
- •Father (C) appeared in person with a McKenzie Friend; Mother (D) appeared in person.
- •Significant delays due to various applications by the father.
- •Father's aim was to challenge US court decisions, but the rehearing was limited to grounds in the 2007 Hague Convention.
- •Extensive documentation submitted by both parties.
- •Father alleged fraud and procedural irregularities in the US court proceedings.
- •Mother argued the father had sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard in the US proceedings.
Legal Principles
2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance governs recognition and enforcement of maintenance orders.
2007 Hague Convention
Art 22 of the 2007 Hague Convention sets out grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement, including public policy, fraud, incompatibility with other decisions, lack of proper notice, and violation of Article 18.
Art 22, 2007 Hague Convention
Art 23(7) of the 2007 Hague Convention limits appeals to grounds in Art 22 or Art 20 (not relevant here).
Art 23(7), 2007 Hague Convention
Art 28 of the 2007 Hague Convention prohibits review of the merits of the original decision by the State addressed.
Art 28, 2007 Hague Convention
Family Procedure Rules 2010 govern appeals in family court.
FPR 2010
The court addressed retains discretion even if Art 22 conditions are met.
Explanatory Report on the 2007 Hague Convention
Child Support Act 1991, s. 44(1) states that the Secretary of State does not have jurisdiction to provide a maintenance assessment where a child is habitually resident abroad.
Child Support Act 1991, s. 44(1)
Child Support Act 1991, s. 8 governs the limited circumstances where a court may make a child maintenance order even if the Secretary of State lacks jurisdiction.
Child Support Act 1991, s. 8
Outcomes
Father's appeal dismissed.
The court found no basis under Art 22 of the 2007 Hague Convention to refuse recognition of the US maintenance order. The father's extensive submissions were largely irrelevant as they focused on the merits of the original US decision, which is prohibited under Art 28.