BT and WS vs Social Administration of Linkoping

This case concerned a jurisdictional dispute over the care of a child, Y, involving complex international legal conflicts and allegations of neglect.

TLDR:

• BT and WS applied for an 'order for voluntary return' of their child, Y, from Sweden to England.
• The High Court had to determine if it had jurisdiction based on habitual residence.
• The court found it did not have jurisdiction as Y was not habitually resident in England.
• The court dismissed the parents' application for want of jurisdiction.

The case involved BT and WS, parents of a child, Y, born in October 2021. They applied under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court for an 'order for voluntary return' of Y from Sweden to England. The application named the Social Administration of Linkoping, Sweden, as the respondent. The court had to determine if it had jurisdiction based on Y's habitual residence.

The parents argued that the court had jurisdiction because Y was habitually resident in England. They produced a Skeleton Argument and made oral submissions. The father also provided a signed witness statement. The background revealed that the family had faced issues with birth registration in Finland and had moved to Sweden, where Y was taken into care by Swedish authorities.

The court reviewed the evidence, including a report from the Social Administration of Linkoping, which painted a different picture from the parents' account. The report indicated concerns about the parents' care of Y, including allegations of neglect and the death of Y's sibling in Finland. The Swedish authorities had taken Y into care due to these concerns.

The court considered the legal principles governing habitual residence, referencing the 1996 Hague Convention and relevant case law. The court noted that habitual residence is a question of fact based on the child's circumstances. Y had never been to England and was currently in care in Sweden. The court found that Y did not have a practical connection to England and was not habitually resident there.

The court also noted that it had no power to compel a local authority to take a child into care or to recover a child from a foreign jurisdiction. Even if the court had jurisdiction, it could not make the 'voluntary return order' sought by the parents.

In conclusion, the court found that it had no jurisdiction to make orders in respect of Y and dismissed the parents' application for want of jurisdiction. The court made no order as to costs.

Legal representatives: The Applicants appeared in Person.

Judicial Panel: Mr. Justice MacDonald

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1373 (Fam)