The District Court found that a young person identified in the judgment only as “Child 1” had become habitually resident in Ireland within weeks of arriving, giving it jurisdiction to make a care order under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991. The court also found a care order appropriate and proportionate.
The proceedings began with an emergency care order application by the Child and Family Agency (CFA), following Garda action under section 12 of the Act. The agency had previously obtained an emergency care order and an interim care order, which was extended while the court considered jurisdiction and the circumstances of Child 1’s presence in Ireland. The judgment records that Child 1 was 17 when the care proceedings began and nearly 18 at the time of the decision.
The case concerned whether Child 1’s habitual residence had shifted from her country of origin to Ireland before the proceedings began. Her parents had authorised a much older man to bring her to Ireland on a tourist visa for a year and represent her before authorities. The declaration was validly executed, the court said, but the parents later said they had signed it mistakenly and had started proceedings abroad seeking to annul it. No order annulling it was produced, and the District Court treated the declaration as valid for the purposes of its decision.
The evidence about the arrangement was disputed. Child 1 and the man described their relationship as consensual and said her parents had agreed to it; her parents denied agreeing that she would live with him as a couple. The parents said she had come to help care for an aunt’s children and expressed concerns about her safety and the possibility of an imposed marriage. Child 1 testified that she feared being made to marry if returned. The court said it did not need to resolve the conflict over the arrangements. It also noted that the Garda investigation into alleged trafficking had not been finalised.
In deciding jurisdiction, the court considered Child 1’s own evidence and that of social workers. It was satisfied that she intended to live in Ireland in a committed relationship of her choosing, had declined an opportunity to return, and had put down roots and integrated into Irish society within weeks. The court concluded that her habitual residence had shifted before the care proceedings began, including by the time proceedings were opened in the other EU jurisdiction in spring 2015.
The court received the agency’s draft after-care plan and noted that a final plan would be filed. The hearing was held in camera. The judgment directs that nothing be reported or broadcast, including return dates, if it could identify the child or any party.