The High Court has refused a father’s application for custody-related orders, including an order to return his son to Ireland from Latvia. Mr Justice Garrett Simons gave two reasons: Ireland’s retained jurisdiction had ended because of delay in starting the proceedings, and, in any event, returning the child would not be in his best interests.
The judgment, delivered on 29 January 2021, concerns an 11-year-old boy whose mother did not return with him to Ireland after a holiday in Latvia in the summer of 2015. The Riga Regional Court accepted that the retention was wrongful and that the child had been habitually resident in Ireland, but refused to order his return in March 2017. It relied on the grave-risk defence under the Hague Convention and the child’s objection to returning. The High Court’s account of the Latvian ruling records findings of prior abuse by the father; those were findings of the Latvian court, not new findings made in this judgment.
Under the Brussels IIa Regulation, Ireland could retain jurisdiction after a non-return order, subject to specified conditions. The Latvian Central Authority sent the non-return decision and related material to Ireland’s Minister for Justice on 22 May 2017. The Minister’s application to the High Court was not made until 13 December 2017. The father filed his Article 11(7) motion in March 2018, within the three-month period set by the High Court after notification.
Justice Simons said the Minister had enough material to start the process in May 2017 and should not have waited for additional documents. He found no proper explanation for the more than six-month delay. The court held that Ireland’s retained jurisdiction had ended and that jurisdiction had transferred to Latvia. It therefore closed the case under Article 11(7).
The judge also considered the father’s request on the assumption that Ireland still had jurisdiction. The child had lived in Latvia for about five and a half years and was settled there. A report obtained by the High Court described his living conditions as good and recorded his wish to remain in Latvia. The father had provided no evidence about his capacity to care for the child, including accommodation. The court also considered expert material advising against contact that could cause further trauma, and the child’s reported opposition to meeting his father.
On that alternative basis, the court refused the father’s application under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. It made no access order, observing that any contact should be considered by the Latvian courts and take place there if appropriate. The judge said Latvia was now the only state with jurisdiction over parental responsibility and that any further custody or access application should be made there. No costs order was proposed, subject to any submissions by 12 February 2021.