Separate representation of children following final Hague Convention return decision (Re A and B (Separate Representation))
Family analysis: This case involved an application by the children (brothers, aged 12 (A) and 10 (B)) to be represented separately from their Cafcass guardian. After the making of a final return decision and the Court of Appeal’s refusal in respect of their mother’s application for permission to appeal that decision, the solicitor instructed directly by the children sought the High Court’s permission for separate representation and set aside of the final return decision. The children already had party status due to the parallel asylum proceedings. The application for A to be separately represented was refused, despite his solicitor (a ‘most experienced professional’) having assessed him as having sufficient understanding (per Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, r 16.29,) to give instructions on his own behalf. B did not yet possess such an understanding and the fact that his older brother did was immaterial. The proposed set aside application was held to be unarguable and to have no prospect of success. The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, provided helpful guidance for practitioners on separate representation applications, particularly where the relevant child’s views have been compromised by a parent’s influence. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, examines the issues.
![Brussels I (recast)—domicile (Arts 4 and 63) [Archived]](https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/images/default-source/dispute-resolution/sa-1119-018--psl-delayed-auth_925x286_1dispute_resolution_1.tmb-populrdesk.jpg?sfvrsn=4c7f4d3_2)
CONTACT US
