The High Court refused an application to have a five-year-old girl interviewed in proceedings seeking her return to France under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction.
The motion, brought under Article 11(2) of Council Regulation 2201/2003, asked the court to hear the child’s views on matters relevant to the return proceedings. Mr Justice Michael White delivered judgment on 19 July 2013. The court’s ruling addressed only whether the child should be interviewed; it did not determine whether she should be returned to France.
The parents, identified in the judgment as K.G. and M.G., had married in France in 2008. M.G., also identified in the judgment as B.O’R., applied for divorce there later that year. The divorce was granted in April 2012. French courts had made a number of custody and access orders concerning their daughter, identified as H.G.
The judgment said M.G. relied on Article 13 of the Hague Convention to oppose the child’s return, among other disputed matters. Article 13 includes exceptions to return, including grave risk of harm and a child’s objection where the child has sufficient age and maturity. Those issues remained part of the wider proceedings; the motion before Mr Justice White concerned the opportunity for the child to be heard.
The court considered the child’s age and maturity, and the number of times she had already been interviewed. She had just turned five. The judgment referred to reports by her general practitioner, Dr Diarmuid Mulcahy, and psychologist Margaret Bednarska, as well as assessments in France. Bednarska’s April 2013 report said the child struggled to understand custody and living arrangements and could not cope with transitions between Ireland and France. A June report described her becoming tense and withdrawing when asked about France.
Mr Justice White doubted that the child had the maturity to communicate views relevant to deciding the issues. He also said that, because she had already been interviewed many times from a young age, a trial court would have major difficulty attributing weight to another report and assessment. The court therefore refused the application to interview her. The judgment did not resolve the underlying Hague return proceedings or the parties’ other disputes.