The High Court has affirmed a Circuit Court order allowing a mother to relocate with her child to a town identified in the judgment only as D, with the move to take place at the end of the school year.
Mr Justice Henry Abbott delivered the judgment on 22 July 2016 in an appeal by the father against an order made on 18 April 2016. The court heard evidence from both parents and considered their affidavits and reports by Prof. Sheehan. It directed itself to the child’s best interests under the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015.
The parents had lived in the city when their child, identified as O, was born in 2008. After their separation, the mother bought a home in D. The child attended school there for a time, but later returned to a school in the city following Circuit Court applications. The mother then lived in the city in shared accommodation while retaining the home in D.
The father argued that the child should remain at school in the city. He said relocation would make access arrangements cumbersome and raise concerns about travel, expense and the child’s contact with city friends and sporting activities. He proposed that the mother rent out her home and take an apartment in the city. The judge said he would favour that arrangement if it were feasible within the parents’ combined budget, but considered that the mother was unlikely to agree and that the court could not impose it. The mother had told the court that renting the house could be difficult and involve a tax cost, and that family and friends in D could help with the child’s school needs when she was working.
The judge gave considerable weight to the child’s expressed preference to attend school in D and his wish to be “in peace”, which the judgment understood as wanting an end to repeated disputes and school changes. The judge accepted Prof. Sheehan’s view that the child, then over seven, had enough awareness and understanding to express a view. The court also considered the child’s relationships with both parents, his needs, the disruption caused by litigation and the arrangements for maintaining contact.
The judgment noted that the mother had bought the house and initially sent the child to school in D without the father seeking a court order or objecting at that stage. The judge said that earlier move might not have been approved had it been put before the court then, but the ownership of the house had become a constraint affecting the present decision.
The High Court affirmed the Circuit Court order. It did not make a costs order in this judgment, instead awaiting counsel’s submissions on costs.