The High Court allowed a mother’s appeal in a child custody case and ordered her son to return to Germany, where he was to live with her and attend his former school. The court kept both parents as guardians and set detailed arrangements for the father’s access and the child’s medical care.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Henry Abbott, followed a rehearing of the mother’s appeal against a Circuit Court order made in August 2011. That order had awarded custody to the father and directed the child’s relocation from Germany to Ireland. The High Court’s written reasons followed hearings in 2012; the formal order directed the child’s return to Ireland by 29 August 2012 before his handover to his mother for the return to Germany ahead of the school term.
The parents had agreed in a District Court order in 2005 that the mother could take the child abroad if she chose to live outside Ireland. The High Court noted that a German court had rejected the father’s Hague Convention return application, finding the move had been made with the parties’ consent. The Irish court likewise found the relocation was not wrongful abduction, so the Hague Convention procedure for a further welfare inquiry did not apply.
In deciding where the child should live, the judge considered his stated preference, schooling, family and social ties, and evidence about attention deficit disorder and dyspraxia. The court gave significant weight to the child’s views, but concluded that access to supervised medication and treatment in Germany was a decisive consideration. It said the father opposed that treatment and that the evidence did not show comparable prospects for medical support or funding in Ireland. The court ordered treatment to continue under the direction of Dr Barnard, with the parents to consult jointly with the doctor.
The order provided for joint custody and guardianship, with the mother responsible for day-to-day care in Germany and the father during access. It set holiday and weekend visits, regular telephone, Skype and email contact, and required the mother to facilitate the father’s access in Germany. The 2005 maintenance order was reinstated, with specified credits against maintenance payments. The court made no order as to costs in either the Circuit Court or High Court.