The Court of Appeal has dismissed a father’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing orders that would have returned his two children from Poland to Ireland or restored access under a 2016 District Court order.
The appeal concerned the Irish courts’ role after Polish courts refused the children’s summary return under the Hague Convention. The Court of Appeal said the High Court had to assess the children’s current welfare under Irish law. The father’s 2016 access order could not simply be enforced without considering intervening events and the children’s present best interests.
The children were retained in Poland after 6 January 2017, in breach of the District Court order. Polish courts initially ordered their return in 2017, and an appeal court upheld that decision in 2018. After further proceedings, however, a Polish Circuit Court refused summary return on 1 September 2021, finding that return would pose a grave risk. That was the operative non-return decision.
The father then applied to the High Court under Article 11 of the Brussels II bis Regulation, seeking orders including recognition of his earlier access rights, custody and the children’s return. The High Court refused the reliefs in March 2024 after a welfare assessment. It found the children should remain in Poland and that the Polish courts should address their future welfare and any restoration of contact.
The Court of Appeal said it was not its role to review the Polish proceedings or revisit earlier Polish decisions that had been superseded. It also rejected the argument that the 2016 order required the children’s return regardless of their circumstances at the time of the hearing.
The High Court had considered a court-appointed expert’s report, which contained factual errors. The appeal court noted that the High Court recognised those limitations and relied on the report principally to understand the children’s views. Both children expressed opposition to contact with their father and said they wanted to remain in Poland. The Court of Appeal also noted their prolonged estrangement from their father, their limited English and the potential distress of uprooting them.
The appeal court upheld the High Court’s decision to refuse further adjournments, concluding that further delay would prolong uncertainty and was not shown to benefit the children. It dismissed the appeal. It proposed that there be no order as to costs, subject to any written submissions seeking a different order by 14 September 2024.