In the case of Re J & H [2024] EWHC 1395 (Fam), the High Court of Justice, Family Division, presided by Williams J, addressed jurisdictional issues under the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention concerning two children, Nora and Felicity, amid cross-allegations of abuse between the parents. The father, a British citizen, sought parental responsibility and a return order for Nora, while the Thai mother opposed the applications, challenging the court’s jurisdiction. The judgment explored the children's habitual residence, parental responsibility, and the applicability of the Hague Convention, concluding that the court retained jurisdiction over Nora but required further welfare evidence before making a final determination.
Case Overview:
The case revolves around two children, Nora (6) and Felicity (5), born to a British father (J) and a Thai mother (H). The parents’ relationship has been marked by significant tension, with both making serious allegations against each other, including claims of abuse.
Legal Issues:
Jurisdiction Under the Hague Convention: The court examined whether the children were habitually resident in England or Thailand and whether it retained jurisdiction under the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention.
Parental Responsibility: The father’s application for parental responsibility for both children raised questions about the court’s ability to grant such orders under both the Convention and domestic law.
Court’s Analysis:
The court determined that Nora had acquired habitual residence in England, giving it jurisdiction under the Hague Convention. It was noted that although Nora had spent time in Thailand, her integration into the English social and family environment was significant, maintaining her habitual residence in England. For Felicity, who primarily lived in Thailand, the court retained residual jurisdiction but required further evidence to consider any welfare-related orders.
Judgment Summary:
Williams J concluded that the High Court retained jurisdiction over Nora under the 1996 Hague Convention and domestic law. The case will proceed to further hearings to gather additional welfare evidence, including possible social work reports from Thailand, before making final orders regarding the children’s custody and parental responsibility.
Implications:
This case underscores the complexities involved in cross-border custody disputes, particularly where different legal frameworks, such as the Hague Convention and domestic law, intersect. The judgment illustrates the importance of determining the habitual residence of children and the careful consideration courts must give to both legal and welfare concerns in such cases.
Comments