D v D & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2687 (Fam)
Re S (A Child: Article 9 transfer to Norway)
25 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2814 (Fam)
High Court
A baby's mom wants to move back to Norway. A UK court had to decide if the case should stay in the UK or move to Norway. The judge decided it was best for the baby to go to Norway to be closer to her mom and because the Norwegian authorities are better able to help once the mom gets settled in there.
Key Facts
- •Article 9 transfer of jurisdiction relating to the protection of an 11-month-old child, S, from England and Wales to Norway under the 1996 Hague Convention.
- •The mother, M, supports the transfer; the Guardian and Local Authority oppose it initially, but the father, F, changes his position to support the transfer.
- •M is a Norwegian citizen who recently moved to the UK and has an asylum claim; she intends to return to Norway.
- •Care proceedings are underway in England and Wales, with assessments completed but a final hearing pending.
- •Concerns about M involve homelessness, criminality, substance misuse, and unreliable behaviour.
- •S has no links to Norway except through her mother's citizenship.
Legal Principles
The 1996 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption dictates that the judicial authorities of the child's habitual residence have jurisdiction.
1996 Hague Convention, Article 5; section 3C of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
Article 9 allows for transfer of jurisdiction if another Contracting State believes it's better placed to assess the child's best interests; acceptance by the habitual residence state is required.
1996 Hague Convention, Article 9
The best interests of the child are paramount in deciding whether to accept a transfer request under Article 9; mutual respect and trust between states are key principles.
1996 Hague Convention Handbook 6th Edition, Chapter 5; Re N (children) [2016] UKSC 15
Outcomes
The court accepts Norway's request to transfer jurisdiction.
The court weighs several factors, including M's imminent return to Norway, the potential delay in UK proceedings, S's cultural and national identity, and the courts' respective abilities to assess evidence. The judge concludes that assessing M in her Norwegian environment and facilitating a return to her is vital despite potential delays.