The High Court has ordered the return of two children to Romania after finding that their older sister’s objection to returning was made out and that she was mature enough for the court to take her views into account.
In a judgment delivered on 13 July 2016, Ms Justice Bronagh O’Hanlon considered the father’s application under the Hague Convention on international child abduction. The children, identified as D.A.P. and A.P., were born in Romania and had lived there before remaining in Ireland after travel permission expired on 2 June 2015.
The parents disputed when the children travelled to Ireland. The mother said it was around February 2015; the father said around April. The court treated the case as one of wrongful retention after the agreed permission expired. Proceedings began on 5 April 2016, within a year of that date, making return mandatory unless a Convention defence applied.
The case narrowed to the nine-year-old child D.’s objection to return. A court-appointed clinical psychologist reported that D. preferred life in Ireland with her mother, sister and maternal grandmother, and did not want to spend time with her father, particularly without her mother present. The psychologist considered D. capable of forming her own views and noted her significant emotional response when discussing her father. The younger child, aged two, was considered too young for an assessment.
The mother relied on the child’s objection under Article 13 of the Convention. The father accepted that D. objected and that her views could be considered, but argued they should not determine the outcome. The court applied a three-stage approach: whether the objection was established, whether the child’s age and maturity made it appropriate to consider, and whether discretion should be exercised to order return. It answered the first two questions in the child’s favour.
After considering the totality of the evidence, the children’s individual best interests and Article 8 family rights, the court concluded that their best interests favoured return to Romania, where custody and access issues could be decided. The objection therefore did not prevent a return order.
The judgment states that the court sought undertakings from the father: a lump sum of €3,600 towards the children’s return and monthly payments of €1,200 beginning on 27 October 2016 and continuing until a Romanian court decision about the children. The source excerpt ends without setting out the formal order or clarifying whether the undertakings were accepted or made conditions of return.