The High Court has granted a mother liberty to relocate her young son to the United States and awarded her sole custody, finding that the move was in the child’s best interests. The order permits relocation on or after 29 August 2019 and provides for continuing access by the father.
Mr Justice Jordan said the mother was the child’s primary carer and that her husband, a US Army career officer, was based in the United States. The mother and her husband have a younger son, and the judge found the brothers had formed a strong attachment. He considered the family unit was tied to the United States and that refusing relocation would have a significant impact on its members, including the child.
The father opposed relocation. The judge acknowledged the child had a good bond with him and said it was essential to preserve their meaningful relationship. The father had told an assessor he was willing to visit the child in the United States as part of an access arrangement. The court ordered three further access weekends in Ireland during August 2019, followed by the facility for weekend access in the United States on dates designated by the father with three weeks’ notice, from September 2019 to February 2020. The order also provides for a US mirror order or registration, at the mother’s expense and on notice to the father.
The case followed the child’s removal from Ireland by the mother in August 2017 without advance notice to the father. A US federal court later ordered the child’s return to Ireland under the Hague Convention. The High Court noted that the finding of child abduction in those proceedings remained in place after the mother withdrew her appeal without prejudice. The judge said a relocation application under Irish child-welfare law was a separate matter, to be decided on the child’s best interests.
An earlier District Court order declaring the father a guardian from the child’s birth had been quashed in separate High Court judicial review proceedings. The father’s undisputed appointment as guardian from October 2017 remained in effect. In the relocation hearing, the judge declined to consider a further guardianship application because it had not been properly brought or served.
The judgment also addressed a criminal charge against the mother, who was charged under section 16 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. The judge expressed concern about the father’s pursuit of the complaint and its potential consequences for the mother and child. However, in deciding relocation, he exercised his discretion to disregard both parents’ conduct.
The court directed that the child’s passport be returned to the mother’s solicitor if it remained with the father’s solicitor. Justice Jordan said he would hear counsel on the final form of the order and on costs.