The High Court has ordered three children returned to England and Wales after finding they were wrongfully removed from that jurisdiction. The court accepted that each child objected to returning and was mature enough for their views to be taken into account, but concluded that the evidence supported a return order.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Bronagh O’Hanlon on 13 July 2016, concerned an application by the children’s father under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The children, identified as O., M. and H., were born in England and Wales. The court found that they were habitually resident there and that the father was exercising custody rights when they were taken to Ireland on or about 2 April 2016 without his consent.
The English courts had already made orders concerning the children, including an order prohibiting a change of their school or residence. The High Court noted that proceedings remained live in England and Wales and that those courts had seisin of the case. An Irish interim order had meanwhile prevented the mother from removing the children from the court’s jurisdiction or their Irish address. The court had also arranged for a clinical psychologist to interview the children and report their views.
The mother said the children had wanted to stay in Ireland after what had been planned as a holiday, were settled there and objected to returning. She also said they chose to change their names before leaving England. The father’s affidavit alleged that the mother had tried to conceal the children’s whereabouts and raised concerns about her mental health and her treatment of them. Those were allegations, not findings stated in this judgment.
The psychologist’s reports recorded the children’s objections and their accounts of family conflict, school difficulties and feeling calmer in Ireland. The reports described emotional immaturity or anxiety and a risk of emotional instability. The psychologist found no evidence of overt coercion or coaching, while noting that the children appeared keen to keep their mother happy and that H. had been implicitly influenced by her.
Applying the three-stage approach to the children’s objections, the High Court found that each child’s objection was made out and that each was old enough and mature enough for the views to be considered. It nevertheless exercised its discretion in favour of return, taking account of the evidence and the English proceedings. The court said the father’s undertakings would safeguard the children’s wellbeing pending further decisions in England and Wales: he undertook to pay £2,000 towards their return and to resume maintenance of £400 a week from 5 August 2016, until the English courts made a further order. The judgment ordered return; it did not decide the children’s long-term care.