The Supreme Court has upheld a High Court decision dismissing a father’s application for the return of his daughter to France under the Hague Convention and EU law.
The appeal concerned whether the child, identified in the judgment as H, was still habitually resident in France immediately before her mother allegedly wrongfully retained her in Ireland. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had enough evidence to find that she was habitually resident in Ireland by then.
The mother brought H to Ireland on 12 July 2012 under an April 2012 French court order that authorised her to choose whether the child would live in France or Ireland. The father appealed that order. In March 2013, a French appeal court reversed it, directed that H live with her father and found that her habitual residence was in France. The mother did not return H.
The father sought her return in the Irish High Court. In August 2013, that court dismissed his application, finding that the move to Ireland had been lawful and that H had become habitually resident there. The father appealed.
The Supreme Court referred questions on the EU Regulation to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The EU court said the Irish court had to assess all the circumstances to determine whether H remained habitually resident in France immediately before the alleged wrongful retention. It said the provisional enforceability of the order permitting the move, and the pending appeal, were relevant factors weighing against a transfer of habitual residence, to be assessed alongside evidence of the child’s integration and family life.
The Supreme Court said the High Court had considered those factors. The judgment referred to evidence about H’s family connections in Ireland, her day-to-day life there and the relationship between her and each parent. The High Court had also considered reports concerning her attachment to her mother and her relationship with her father, while making no finding about responsibility for changes in the access arrangements.
The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the High Court’s finding and upheld its judgment. The ruling concerned the return application based on habitual residence. The judgment stated that dismissal of that application would not determine or displace the separate rules for recognition and enforcement of judgments made in another EU member state. The father’s separate Irish enforcement proceedings were stayed at the time of the Supreme Court judgment.