The High Court has rejected two preliminary challenges brought by a mother in proceedings over recognition and enforcement of Rhode Island custody orders concerning her youngest child. The court did not decide the father’s substantive enforcement application in this judgment.
The father is seeking recognition and enforcement of orders made by the Kent County Family Court in Rhode Island on 24 August and 16 December 2016. They directed that the child, identified as E. McA., move to live with him in Rhode Island. The judgment describes the father as resident there and the mother as resident in Ireland.
The mother argued that Irish courts had exclusive jurisdiction over parental responsibility because the child was habitually resident in Ireland. She also argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the enforcement proceedings. The parties agreed that these issues should be decided before any substantive hearing.
On the first issue, the court held that the mother was estopped from raising jurisdiction again. It noted that an earlier High Court order had stayed Irish proceedings pending a decision by the Rhode Island court on whether it would assume jurisdiction. The mother had not appealed that order, and she later participated in the Rhode Island proceedings, including an appeal to that state’s Supreme Court.
On the second issue, the court rejected the argument that only the Circuit Court and District Court could hear proceedings under Part II of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. The judge pointed to the mother’s reliance on that Act in earlier High Court proceedings and described her current position as unsustainable.
The judgment recounts that Rhode Island orders in August 2016 provided for joint custody of the three children and placement of E. with the father. It says the mother unsuccessfully appealed and later refused an order requiring her to bring E. to the United States by 3 September 2016. In December 2016, following further applications and the mother’s contempt of court, the Rhode Island court granted the father sole custody of the children.
The High Court rejected the issues raised in the mother’s motion and refused the relief she sought in it. The judgment does not grant the father’s requested recognition or enforcement; those substantive issues remained for later determination.