In the matter of E
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Gillen J |
| Judgment Date | 07 November 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] NIFam 12 |
| Court | Family Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 07 November 2005 |
| Year | 2005 |
1
Neutral Citation no. [2005] NIFam 12 Ref:
GILC5387
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
07/11/2005
(subject to editorial corrections)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
FAMILY DIVISION
________
IN THE MATTER OF E
(FAMILY LAW ACT 1986 ENFORCEMENT: FOREIGN ORDERS: HAGUE
CONVENTION: RESIDENCE ORDER: VOICE OF THE CHILD)
________
GILLEN J
[1] This judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in
any report no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing
them (and any other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may
be identified by name or location and in particular the anonymity of the child
and the adult members of the family must be strictly preserved.
APPLICATIONS
[2] The following proceedings are now before the court concerning a child
E who is currently 12 years of age:
(i) Wardship proceedings instituted by M, the grandmother of E, (and M2,
M’s husband) seeking an order that the child be made a Ward of Court. The
Master of the Family Division has already made such an order and the
application is for the wardship to be renewed.
(ii) An application by C, who is the mother of E, who seeks enforcement
pursuant to Section 29 of the Family Law Act 1986 of an order made on
13 January 2005 in the High Court of Justice Family Division Principal
Registry in London by the then President of the Family Division, Dame
Elizabeth Butler-Sloss. Paragraph 1 of that order, which was the subject of
this application, read as follows:
“In relation to paragraph 1 of the said summons, the
grandmother shall make the child (E) available for
contact as and when the court in Chile so directs and
2
further that she shall return E to the Republic of Chile
as and when required to do so by the Chilean Court.”
That order was a consent order made after negotiations had occurred in the
case. I have seen the summons which preceded that Order dated 31 October
2994, and it is clear that in paragraph 1 of the summons no issue of custody
was sought but simply an order of contact.
(iii) An application by C for the recognition and enforcement of orders
made in Chile on 2 February 2005 and 25 May 2005 when the Chilean Appeal
Court issued a decision upholding a first instance order of the Chilean Court
requiring E to be returned to her mother in Chile at the end of her school year
namely June 2005.
(iv) An application brought by the Official Solicitor on behalf of the child E
whereby the child seeks a residence order that she live with M and M2.
[3] Mr Long QC, who appeared on behalf of M and M2 with Mr Ritchie,
indicated that the object of the wardship proceedings had been to create a
holding situation until this court was in a position to determine the future of
the child.
BACKGROUND
[4] The background facts in this case were largely undisputed. As I will
later set out, I heard evidence, inter alia, in this matter from C, M and M2 and
combining the common issues with my determination of those matters that
were disputed between them, I have concluded that the following is the
relevant background.
C is the mother of E and is a Chilean national. M is the maternal grandmother
and is also a Chilean national. The father of the child is another Chilean
national, CH. CH and C had formed a relationship in 1992, E was born in
1993 and sadly in 1996 the relationship terminated. E’s father thereafter had
sporadic contact with the child until 1997 when it ceased although some
contact was re-established in 2003. In Chile the child had contact with M.
However M moved to England in or about 1998 for work reasons and whilst
there established a relationship with M2. M was involved in lecturing on
human rights and M2 was engaged in international dispute resolution. C is a
journalist by occupation. By agreement E travelled to England in October
1998 to spend Christmas with M, C indicating that at that stage it was her
intention the child should return on 31 December 1998. It is common case
however that whilst E was away, C suffered mental health difficulties of a
depressive nature and also renal failure. It is M’s case that when she took E
back to Chile early in 1999, C’s circumstances were very bad. She was
attending a psychiatric clinic and felt unable to met E’s needs. C concedes
To continue reading
Request your trial