Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Family analysis: Considering the rapid increase of public law cases with an international element, Carolina Marín Pedreños, a partner at Dawson Cornwell, says the decision in Re CB highlights the importance of taking into consideration the nationality of the parties in family cases.
Re CB (a child) (placement order: Brussels II Regulation) (Central Authority of the Republic of Latvia intervening)  EWCA Civ 888,  All ER (D) 72 (Aug)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a mother's appeal against the rejection of applications made by her in the present proceedings by which she sought to challenge the care and placement orders made in respect of her daughter who had been placed with prospective adopters. The court decided that the judge who had made the orders had been justified in doing so for the reasons he had given.
What were the key issues in this case?
The appeal concerned a young Latvian child, habitually resident in this jurisdiction since her birth, placed in the care of the local authority since March 2010 and with prospective adopters in May 2013.
Moylan J had refused the mother's applications for:
Permission to appeal may have been granted to the appellant mother as a result of the representations made by the Republic of Latvia to the House of Commons (a letter from the Republic of Latvia to the Speaker of the House of Commons is annexed to the judgment) and to the European Parliament about our domestic adoption law.
The key issue is the guidance provided by Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division, on the interaction between domestic public law legislation and international private and public legislation in the form of Brussels II bis, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 (the Vienna Convention) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
How did the court address the intervention of the Republic of Latvia?
The Republic of Latvia first showed an interest in the case in 2012, two years after care proceedings had commenced. The head of the Consular Section of the Embassy of Latvia wrote to the local authority asking, among other things, why they had not been informed about the case. The unfortunate reply from the local authority was that they were not aware of their obligation to do so.
In summer 2014, in reply to a further letter, on that occasion from the Ambassador, the local authority apologised for not having complied with their obligations under the Vienna Convention.
Consequently a representative of the Republic of Latvia attended the first directions hearing relating to the prospective adopters' application to adopt and permission was granted for appropriate disclosure. Moylan J invited Latvia to attend the hearing and their written submissions were taken into consideration and their oral representations allowed. At that point there had been four years of litigation in this jurisdiction. Care and placement orders had been made and the mother had not sought to argue that the threshold criteria in section 31 of the Children Act 1989 were not satisfied. The outcome was that the mother's:
The mother's appeal was refused by Moylan J and referred to the Court of Appeal. With the appellant notice, the appellant lodged a report dated January 2015 from the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (Rapporteur: Ms Olga Borzova) titled, 'Social services in Europe: legislation and practice of the removal of children from their families in Council of Europe member states' (the Council of Europe report) along with a letter dated 16 February 2015 from the Saeima of the Republic of Latvia to the Speaker of the House of Commons.
The order of the President of the Family Division granted permission to appeal and invited representatives of the Republic of Latvia to appear and make representations at the appeal hearing. Consequently the Latvian central authority made an application to intervene and such application was granted.
From the chronology it can be noted that at all instances, international public law was applied by way of disclosure of the relevant documents to the foreign states and by allowing the representatives of the foreign state to attend hearings in person and to make written and oral representations.
The order of the President granting permission to the appeal could be clearly interpreted as an invitation to the Republic of Latvia to intervene in the proceedings. His detailed and careful judgment dealt with all the complaints and criticism made of our domestic legislation and our applicability of international public law.
How did the court approach the grounds of appeal?
The court addressed all four grounds widely and generously including the issue of contact which was not challenged by the appellant in the skeleton argument. The court further considered the ground that 'nothing else will do' with sensible care and clarity in response to repeated criticism from other foreign states and even nationals, of our adoption system post-ACA 2002.
The court made the following findings.
Change of circumstances under ACA 2002, s 47(5)
The involvement of a foreign state after a placement order has been made, even if it is due to late notification, does not automatically constitute a change in circumstances for the purposes of ACA 2002, s 47(5).
The theoretical ability by a foreign state to identify a cultural match for a child is not necessarily a change of circumstances for the purposes of ACA 2002, s 47(5).
Error of law
Brussels II bis, art 1(3)(b) clearly excludes the application of the Regulation from proceedings concerning moves preparatory to adoption, consequently Brussels II bis, art 15 was not applicable to this case. Applications for permission to oppose an adoption application under the ACA 2002, s 47(5) are moves preparatory to adoption for the purposes of Brussels II bis.
Additionally, as pointed out by leading counsel for the local authority, Henry Setright QC, the transfer argument was not made by anyone in the original care and placement proceedings.
Guidance was given that the inevitable loss of cultural heritage by a foreign national child through adoption is not a reason to decline to make an adoption order when nothing else will do.
The President quoted his former jurisprudence in this regard from January 2014 when he identified the increase of public law cases when an EU national is involved, hence Re E (a child) (care proceedings: jurisdiction)  EWHC 6 (Fam),  2 FCR 264.
In that case the President set up good practice for the court when dealing with foreign states in family matters and in particular in care cases (at para ), ie:
'Nothing else will do'
The appellant mother and the intervener invited the court to conclude that the domestic approach to adoption was incompatible with European practice and principles. Findings were made that domestic adoption law is compatible with European legislation and rights protected under the ECHR.
With this decision the President extended the guidance provided by the court in the above mentioned case, to the local authorities (at para ), ie:
What is the significance of this decision, including its practical implications?
The Court of Appeal examined the interaction between domestic law and public international law in the case of Re E (above). In Re CB the President provided guidance for the courts when dealing with foreign nationals, particularly in public law proceedings.
The rapid increase in public law cases with an international element, combined with the attention that the media is giving these cases, together with the criticism of the European community in respect of our adoption system, makes it apparent that these cases need to be dealt with carefully. With this decision the President lays out clear guidance to the local authorities when dealing with these cases, stating primarily that they should be proactive in bringing to the attention of the relevant consular authorities at the earliest opportunity the fact that care proceedings have commenced or that they are considering making such an application.
Does the decision highlight any unresolved issues in this area?
This decision further draws attention to the importance of taking into consideration the nationality of the parties in family cases. As international practitioners, focus is primarily paid to the habitual residence, but as already noted in Re A (children) (jurisdiction: return of child)  UKSC 60,  3 FCR 559, that nationality could be of great significance, not just in public law cases.
Further, this decision addresses the concerns expressed in the Council of Europe report regarding adoption legislation in England and Wales which referred to 'forced adoption'. In some continental jurisdictions adoption can only be effective by consent. The President's judgment could be seen as a message to representatives of foreign governments about the adoption system in England and Wales and compliance with international public law in this respect, ie, he declares in this decision that our domestic legislation in adoption is compatible with international public law and that the system is compliant with the ECHR.
What should lawyers take from this case?
The importance of considering our clients' nationality in context and the possibility of considering a Brussels II bis, art 15 transfer at the commencement of proceedings in cases with an international element is evident.
A perhaps unwanted effect of this decision for practitioners is that foreign states may now become more active in making representations to the court, seeking a transfer of proceedings solely because the child subjected to the proceedings is their national, or because their national is a litigant in person as a supplement to the lack of legal representation of the parties. This has been already observed in court.
Any further points of interest?
Another aspect of the procedure in England and Wales criticised by some of our European colleagues is the possibility of the parties litigating in person in family proceedings. Legal aid is still available to parties in public law proceedings, but to contest an application for adoption legal aid is becoming ever more difficult to obtain. Compulsory legal representation should probably be considered in certain family proceedings, such as adoption proceedings, to silence the potential argument that procedures does not satisfy the ECHR, art 6 which protects the right to a fair trial.
Carolina is a dual qualified lawyer, in Spain and in this jurisdiction where she practises, specialising in international children matters. She is a fellow of the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. In 2011 the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers awarded Carolina the First European Chapter Award for Young Family Lawyers for her essay entitled 'Brussels II bis Regulation--Five Years On and Proposals for Reform'. She was also The Times Lawyer of the Week in September 2014 for her successful representation of a client in the first case with Russia following their ratification of The Hague 1996 Convention. She has recently been awarded a place by the US Department of State to participate in their multi-regional project, 'Children in the US Justice System', as part of the 2016 International Visitor Leadership Programme. She writes articles about children law for English and foreign legal journals and is a frequent lecturer on family law.
Interviewed by Kate Beaumont.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234