View source for Re QD (2019) EWCOP 56

{{Case
|Date=2019/12/19
|NCN=[2019] EWCOP 56
|Essex issue=101
|Essex page=37
|Court=Court of Protection
|Judges=Cobb
|Parties=TD, BS, KD, QD
|Judicial history=*[[Re QD (No.2) (2020) EWCOP 14]]
*[[Re QD (2019) EWCOP 56]]
|Sentence=Habitual residence
|Summary=QD, who had dementia, was living in Spain with his second wife when adult children from his first marriage flew him to England by stealth. The children unsuccessfully argued that: (a) he was now habitually resident in England, so the MCA applied in the usual way; (b) removal was justified under the common law doctrine of necessity; (c) jurisdiction was established on grounds of urgency; (d) even if QD were habitually resident in Spain, orders could be made under the inherent jurisdiction. The judge therefore made a protective measures order under sch 3 MCA 2005 pending a determination by the national authorities in Spain on what should happen next.
|Subject=Foreign protective measure cases
|News=Yes
|RSS pubdate=2020/07/08 01:05:47 PM
}}