The High Court dismissed a mother’s appeal against an order enforcing interim care and recovery orders made by Swansea Family Court for her three children. Mr Justice Henry Abbott affirmed the order made by the Master of the High Court on 3 June 2015. The appeal concerned recognition and enforcement of the Welsh orders in Ireland, not a fresh determination of the underlying care proceedings.
The children, identified as M., H. and A., were born in 2008, 2010 and 2012. Swansea County Council had responsibility for their care and protection. After the mother agreed to voluntary care while proceedings were pending, she withdrew consent during supervised contact on 16 May 2015 and left with the children. The judgment records that police enquiries indicated they travelled to Ireland by ferry that evening with help from a third party.
Swansea Family Court made an interim care order on 18 May 2015. On 20 May, it made orders declaring that the children remained in the council’s care and permitting An Garda Síochána to search for and recover them. In Ireland, Tulsa obtained emergency care orders for the children, each lasting eight days from delivery into Tulsa’s custody. The District Court also ordered that the foster placement’s location be withheld from the mother.
The Master of the High Court ordered the Swansea interim care and recovery orders enforced in Ireland on 3 June 2015. The mother appealed. The High Court briefly stayed the Master’s order on 5 June, but that stay lapsed after the court was informed that the children had returned to Swansea the previous night. The appeal was heard under the Brussels II bis rules, which restrict the grounds on which recognition may be refused and prohibit reviewing the substance of the originating judgment.
The mother raised concerns including whether the children had been heard, particularly the oldest child. The judge held that the orders had been made in urgent circumstances and that the exception for urgency applied. He also noted evidence before the Master that the two oldest children’s views had been sought: the oldest opposed placement in care, while the second preferred the foster placement. The youngest was considered too young to express a view. The judgment observed that the certificate used did not record whether a child had been heard, but said this did not invalidate it.
The court also rejected the other proposed grounds for non-recognition. It found no public-policy basis to refuse enforcement, concluded the mother had been sufficiently notified of the proceedings, and noted there was no later conflicting judgment. The judge said he had not reviewed the underlying decision on its merits. Finding no ground for non-recognition, he dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Master’s order.