The High Court has directed that a child at the centre of proceedings seeking his return to Poland be interviewed again by a clinical psychologist, with a further report prepared for the court. The order addresses the evidence needed for the ongoing case; it does not decide whether the child was wrongfully removed or whether he should return.
In a judgment delivered on 30 January 2020, Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the court could not safely rely only on the psychologist’s report from July 2019. The child had since spent almost twice as long in Ireland, was now seven, and the mother’s pregnancy could affect whether she would be able to travel with him if he returned.
The proceedings concern a boy brought from Poland to Ireland by his mother on 8 December 2018. His father disputes the mother’s claim that Polish court orders gave her the right to decide where the child lived. The father sought the child’s return through the Polish and Irish Central Authorities. The High Court hearing began in December 2019 but has not concluded.
A court-appointed psychologist interviewed the child in July 2019 to give him an opportunity to express his views. The report said he had settled in Ireland and wanted to speak with his father. It also described his understanding of his parents’ difficulties as appropriate for his age, but said he might not be mature enough to understand their relationship and that adults around him could influence his understanding.
The mother’s counsel asked the court to admit a separate report prepared by a Polish psychologist. The judge refused: it had not been exhibited on affidavit, the author’s qualifications had not been stated, and it appeared to address wider family issues beyond the child’s views on a possible return. The judge said he had not read that report, even on a provisional basis.
The parents disagreed about a further court-ordered assessment. The mother supported one; the father argued that it would cause more delay and that the existing report was sufficient. He also submitted that the child’s young age meant little weight should be given to his views, and that delay was attributable to the mother’s conduct.
The judge said those arguments about the child’s age and the parties’ conduct belonged to later stages of the legal test. First, the court needed enough evidence to understand whether the child objected to returning to Poland and the reasons for any objection. The court had made no findings on those substantive matters.
The psychologist is to receive the judgment and address the possible implications of the mother’s pregnancy with particular sensitivity. The judge said counsel would discuss whether the order should include further guidance on that issue.