The High Court found that a 15-year-old child was not habitually resident in State A in October 2012, when she came to Ireland with her mother. The ruling determined a preliminary issue in the father’s Hague Convention application; the court did not make a return order in this judgment and listed the case for further directions.
The father sought the child’s return to State A, arguing that it had been her habitual residence immediately before her move to Ireland. The mother said she brought the child with the father’s knowledge and consent for a stay of about two years connected with her employment. The father disputed agreeing to a stay of that length. The judgment did not resolve that dispute.
The court had directed a modular trial, with habitual residence as the first issue. It heard the issue on affidavit evidence and oral and written submissions. The father had to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the child was habitually resident in State A immediately before coming to Ireland.
The court recounted that the family lived in State A until 1996, then moved to State B, where the child was born in 1998. The family later lived in State C from 2003 to 2010 and State D from 2010 until the mother and child came to Ireland in October 2012. The moves to States C and D were connected with the mother’s employment.
The child had visited State A for holidays, attended summer camp there and was baptised there during a holiday. But she had not otherwise lived there. She attended school in States C and D, took part in activities in State D, and was registered with a doctor and dentist there.
Applying the principle that habitual residence is a question of fact, the court found that the child had not lived in a settled home environment or attended school in State A, apart from summer camp. It concluded on the undisputed facts that she was not habitually resident there in October 2012.
The judge noted that the child’s state of mind, as described in a psychologist’s interview report, was consistent with the conclusion if relevant. The court expressly said it did not rely on that matter in reaching its finding. It directed that counsel return on 5 March 2014 to address the orders to follow from the preliminary determination.