High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division

High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Family Division

United Kingdom - England and Wales

25 October 2024

Re S (A Child: Article 9 Transfer to Norway)

[2024] EWHC 2814 (Fam)

First instance

• Article 5(1)
• Article 9

Article 8

Children Act 1989, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

Not provided

The case concerned an 11-month-old child who was the subject of ongoing care proceedings in England and Wales. The Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs requested a transfer of jurisdiction under Article 9 of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention. The child’s mother, a Norwegian citizen, supported the request, while the child’s guardian and the local authority opposed it. The court accepted that the child was habitually resident in England and Wales and that jurisdiction therefore lay with the English courts under Article 5. The issue was whether the court should accept Norway’s request to assume jurisdiction pursuant to Article 9(3). After balancing factors including delay, the child’s cultural and national identity, the practical consequences of the mother’s imminent return to Norway, and the ability of each jurisdiction to assess the relevant evidence, the court concluded that transfer would better serve the child’s interests. The request was therefore accepted and jurisdiction transferred to Norway.

The High Court accepted a request from the Norwegian authorities under Article 9 of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention for the transfer of jurisdiction concerning an infant child from England and Wales to Norway. Although the child was habitually resident in England and Wales and the English courts therefore possessed jurisdiction under Article 5, the court concluded that it was in the child’s best interests for Norway to assume jurisdiction. The transfer was granted because the mother was imminently returning to Norway, any realistic assessment of her parenting capacity would need to take place there, and maintaining proceedings in England and Wales would risk rendering alternative long-term outcomes impracticable.