The High Court has ordered a nine-year-old boy to be returned to the Czech Republic under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, finding that his wish to remain in Ireland with his father was not enough to refuse return.
In a judgment delivered on 16 July 2012, Mr Justice Edwards directed that the child, identified as V, be returned “forthwith”. The court also declared that his father had wrongfully retained him in Ireland under Article 3 of the Convention. The judge said the Czech courts would ultimately decide where V should live permanently.
V had travelled to Ireland with his paternal grandmother on 21 July 2011 for a visit with his father and was due to return on 15 August. The parents gave different accounts of what followed. His mother said she agreed to an extension until 25 August while she underwent medical treatment, after which V was to return to the care of his maternal grandparents. The father said he decided to keep V in Ireland after learning that the mother was in a rehabilitation centre. The court did not resolve those factual disputes; the father’s counsel conceded that the mother had established the Convention requirements, subject to the child’s objections.
A psychologist who met V in June 2012 reported that he was mature for his age and understood the consequences of staying in Ireland. V said he was happier there, wanted to remain with his father and new family, and would be upset if returned. He also said he missed his mother and maternal grandparents and would return if his father and new siblings could go with him. The psychologist considered his statements a preference for living with his father rather than an objection to living in the Czech Republic.
The judge found that V had loving family members in both countries and no physical or material welfare issue required resolution by the High Court. Although V had lived in Ireland since July 2011 and was doing well at school, he had spent most of his life in the Czech Republic, spoke Czech as his first language and had attended school there until the previous September.
The court concluded that the preference of a nine-year-old, even one mature for his age, and the psychologist’s concern that he may have felt lonely with his grandparents were not sufficient reasons to refuse return. It said the return proceedings had not been unduly delayed, given that the mother had been in hospital for several months. The judge said he would hear further submissions on any ancillary orders or declarations, including costs and expenses.