The High Court has ordered a child to be returned to Ukraine after finding that his father consented to a two-month stay in Poland, but not to the child remaining there longer or moving to Ireland. The court will hear the parties on specific undertakings concerning the child’s future safety before directing them.
In a judgment delivered on 4 October 2024, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty considered the father’s application under the Hague Convention on international child abduction. The child, identified in the judgment as W, had left Ukraine with his mother in March 2022 and arrived in Ireland in November that year. The father sought assistance from Ukraine’s Central Authority in January 2024.
The mother argued that the father had agreed to the move and that the child was settled in Ireland. The court found that the evidence supported an original plan for a two-month trip to Poland. Messages showed the father repeatedly asking where the child was and seeking his return. The judge concluded that the mother had concealed their location and that there was no clear, unequivocal consent to the longer stay or move to Ireland. The court also rejected the suggestion that the father had acquiesced in the arrangement.
Although the child had lived in Ireland for more than a year and attended school there, the judge found insufficient evidence that he had formed a settled emotional home in the country. The judgment noted that he had moved several times and that the evidence did not detail friendships or community activities. The judge also found that much of the delay was connected to the mother’s refusal to disclose their location.
The child objected to returning, citing fear of being killed in Ukraine. The judge accepted that his objection was genuine and that he was mature enough for his views to be considered. But the evidence did not substantiate his belief that the area where his father lived faced the danger he described. The court therefore found that the objection did not outweigh the Convention’s return objectives.
The mother’s grave-risk defence was raised at the hearing but had not been pleaded, and the judgment said no exhibit directly addressed it. The judge nevertheless considered it, finding no evidence sufficient to establish a grave risk of physical or psychological harm on return. The court also rejected an allegation that the child feared his mother because of her drinking, finding no supporting evidence.
The court directed that the child be returned to Ukraine forthwith. It did not specify the safety undertakings in this judgment: the father had indicated he would offer suitable undertakings, and the judge said the parties would be heard on their terms.