NCC v L & Anor.

I am dealing with a small Latvian boy E, who was born on 22^nd August 2006 and he is not quite eight.

The local authority issued proceedings in respect of E on 1^st May 2014 following his reception into care following a police protection order. They issued an emergency protection order application and these proceedings commenced.

The police protection order was taken because it is said that there were some very serious domestic violence witnessed by E perpetrated by the mother’s partner on the mother.

The mother has since withdrawn those allegations. However, E, in care, has been describing life at home with his mother: she drinks alcohol too much; he has not always been fed and kept warm; there is no real routine, sometimes he is allowed to stay up until midnight, sometimes even later, when he plays with a computer or some other toy; that he says that the mother kicks him and assaults him, and that he has witnessed violence between mother and various other partners that she has had. The mother does not accept all of this but this is what he says.

He also has told the guardian that he does not wish to return to his mother’s care and does not even really wish to have contact, although there have been moments within the contact that I have seen when mother and son have enjoyed each other’s company. But he does not wish to return to her care. What he wants to do is to return to Latvia to live with his maternal grandmother and his sister who is living with the grandmother. It is not known who his father is because the mother has not revealed this, so we cannot talk about a paternal family.

The mother now wishes to return to Latvia. She came here in May 2013 to see if she could create a life for herself and her son, leaving behind her daughter. She singularly has failed to create a life. She was in Lshire for nine months, during which time E only attended school for 56 per cent of the time. She came to Nshire on 7^th April 2014, and it was in Nshire that the difficulties came to the attention of the social services. However, he had not been registered in a school in Nshire nor had he been registered with a GP. He was living in a rented room in somebody else’s home with his mother. He had very little connection with this country. He has not talked about friends. It seems that the mother has no relative in this country. The relationship she has with her partner/boyfriend has difficulties. On the face of that, she called 999 on 1^st May 2014, and that E indicates that there is a difficult relationship.

He seems somewhat isolated. He is currently in foster care which is not culturally-appropriate but it is a good foster home, and over the months he has been here he has learned a bit of English.

The local authority are now saying that the jurisdiction of this court should be considered. It was transferred from the local county court to the High Court to consider the position. The mother very much favours this court relinquishing jurisdiction to the Latvian court, and would say on two grounds: that mother and son are not habitually resident and have not been habitually resident in this country, in which case this court has no jurisdiction full stop; but even if I did think we had jurisdiction, under art.15 I should be requesting the Latvian court to take over as it would be in a better place to consider this case and it would be in the child’s best interests, given the connection with Latvia, given the fact that the Riga Orphan’s Court in Latvia has been involved with this family, given that it is now also indicated that it has assessed the maternal grandmother for the care of E, and that the Latvian authorities very much feel that a child should be placed with his relatives. They do not consider our form of adoption as acceptable or an option.

I have to consider, firstly, the habitual residence point. Has E acquired habitual residence in this country since he came here in May 2013? To answer that, I have to ask myself to begin with what are the mother’s views? She wishes to go back to Latvia. She came here to see if she could make a life over here. I also have to ask myself whether there has been any integration of E into the society here. I am clear. I do not think habitual residence actually has been gained in this country. The mother has led a bit of a transient life, as it has been described. She has not found employment, she is not receiving (and not entitled to receive) benefits. She has not established her own home. She has not ensured that E should attend school or be formally registered in a school in the local authority area, and she has not registered him with a GP surgery.

I do not think he is habitually resident here. He wishes to return to Latvia. He wishes to go to live with his grandmother and his sister, who he says he is missing. He does not wish to live with his mother.

I do not think this court has jurisdiction. However, if I am wrong and that I do have jurisdiction, I am clear, under art.15, that this is a case for the Latvians court. They know this family already. They have made enquiries of the grandmother. It is where the child comes from. They have the information readily available to them. The mother very much wants the matter to be returned to Latvia. That is endorsed by the local authority. The guardian remains neutral. The guardian says that, whatever I do, there should be no delay. I endorse that too.

So, in my view, under art.15, I would be making a request because the Latvian court would be in the best position to deal with the case and because it would be in the best interests of the child. Fundamentally, this court does not have jurisdiction because the child is not habitually resident here. I only refer to art.15 to underline my view, and sometimes judges are not always right but I think on this time it is a two-pronged approach and Latvia is the right place.