Barry McAlinden acted for 3 children in their father's application under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction for their summary return from Jersey to England.
The proceedings raised issues about:
- jurisdiction
- habitual residence, and
- whether it was appropriate and proportionate to order a summary return
- whether any protective directions under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 were required.
Position of the children's guardian
The children's guardian represented by Barry supported the order for their return - aligning with the father's position that the court had jurisdiction and that return was in the children’s interests.
Barry assisted the court on the legal framework governing jurisdiction and habitual residence, and the appropriate test for summary return.
Mother's opposition to application
The mother opposed the application, arguing that the children had become habitually resident in Jersey. She also raised allegations of domestic abuse and submitted that the court should decline to order their return.
High Court judgment
The High Court considered the competing positions alongside the children’s welfare and the broader circumstances in Jersey and England, including ongoing involvement of children’s services in both jurisdictions.
It was ordered that a summary return order to England was both necessary and proportionate, and that it was in the children's welfare interests to be returned.
Read the judgment in full in Re: S, L and K [2026] EWHC 1296 (Fam)