The District Court stayed the Child and Family Agency’s care-order application concerning child F and invited the parties to seek the courts of England and Wales to assume jurisdiction. The decision, dated 6 December 2017, did not transfer F or determine the care application.
Judge Brendan Toale said the courts of England and Wales were better placed to hear the case because key evidence concerning F’s older sibling and the events underlying the care application was located there. He had previously found that F had a particular connection with the jurisdiction. In this fourth decision on the Regulation issues, he concluded that asking the English and Welsh courts to take jurisdiction was in F’s best interests.
The court heard evidence from F’s allocated social worker, guardian ad litem, a clinical psychologist and F’s mother. The judge recorded that F had lived with the same foster carers since shortly after birth, in a placement described as short term. The psychologist and guardian had described the distress that could result when that placement ended. The judge found that F’s primary attachment was to the foster father and that F had no measurable attachment to his mother, while also describing mother as important in F’s life and noting their pleasant contact.
The Child and Family Agency and guardian ad litem submitted that F should remain with the current carers while the case was considered in England and Wales, so that any eventual move would be the only move. Mother opposed transfer and argued that it could require an interim move, which she said would harm F. She sought for the case to remain in Ireland and said F should ultimately return to her care. The judge noted that the law in England and Wales did not establish whether accepting the request would require F to move there.
The judge held that Article 15 did not itself require F to move immediately, or before the English and Welsh proceedings were determined. He considered it “most unlikely” that the courts there would make an order for an interim move liable to harm F’s best interests, given safeguards at both the jurisdiction and substantive decision stages. He said the receiving court could refuse the request if assuming jurisdiction was not in F’s best interests.
The order stays the Irish care-order application and invites the parties to introduce a transfer request under Article 15. It does not direct the English and Welsh courts to accept jurisdiction, decide where F will ultimately live, or make a care order. The judge directed that specified social-work, guardian ad litem and psychologist reports be included with any request, subject to the receiving court’s rules. He interpreted Article 15.2 as requiring at least one party to accept the request before it proceeds to the courts of England and Wales.