The Court of Appeal has dismissed a mother’s appeal against a High Court order for the summary return of her two young daughters to British Columbia, Canada, their habitual residence before they were brought to Ireland. The return is to take place forthwith, subject to appropriate undertakings adjusted for any material changes since the High Court hearing.
The court said the children were removed on 24 February 2019 without their father’s knowledge or consent and in breach of a British Columbia court order prohibiting their removal. That order, made on 14 January 2019, remained in force. The father had custody rights under the Hague Convention, the court found, and his participation in the ongoing Canadian proceedings amounted to exercising those rights.
The High Court had declared the removal wrongful and ordered the children’s return under the Hague Convention. On appeal, the mother argued that returning would expose the children to grave risk or an intolerable situation under Article 13(b), citing financial hardship, limited access to legal aid in British Columbia and concerns about her health. She also argued that return would violate fundamental rights under Article 20, challenged evidence concerning financial undertakings, and said the proceedings had been too expedited to allow a fair opportunity to respond.
The Court of Appeal found no basis to refuse return under either Article 13(b) or Article 20. It said the evidence did not establish grave risk to the children, and that the high threshold for refusing return on fundamental-rights grounds had not been met. The court also held that the proceedings had respected the mother’s right to fair procedures. It noted that the High Court had considered extensive materials and delivered a detailed judgment.
The appeal court did not admit extensive new medical evidence the mother sought to introduce during the appeal. It said the material was not suitable for summary Hague Convention appeal proceedings and might relate instead to welfare issues for the Canadian courts.
The return order does not decide the children’s long-term care or custody. The judgment said those welfare questions are for the courts in British Columbia, where proceedings concerning the family were already pending. Undertakings were described as short-term measures to facilitate a safe return until those courts could address the issues; they were not intended to determine long-term arrangements.