The High Court ordered two children to be returned to Sweden after finding they had been wrongfully retained in Ireland for a second time. The court rejected the mother’s arguments that their father had consented to a permanent move, that the children’s habitual residence had changed, or that returning them would expose them to an unmanageable grave risk.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty on 1 February 2024, concerned a Hague Convention application by the father. The children, anonymised in the judgment as R. and I., had also been the subject of a 2022 return application. They came to Ireland in June 2023, but their parents’ discussions about moving the family permanently did not result in an agreement. The court found they were wrongfully retained here in August.
Justice Gearty found that the parents had made substantial preparations for a possible move to Town A, including school registrations and steps concerning a property. But the plan depended on financial arrangements and agreement about where the family would live. The judge found no clear, final consent by the father to a permanent move. She also found the children remained habitually resident in Sweden.
Both children objected to returning, and the judge considered them mature enough for their views to carry weight. The older child had spoken of self-harm and worries about her mental health. The judge was concerned about both children’s wellbeing and the effects of chronic parental conflict. However, she found the mother had not established that the risks could not be addressed in Sweden; the court had little evidence about treatment arranged in Ireland.
The judge initially made the return order but stayed it for 28 days to allow the parents to pursue mediation and arrangements for the family to live in Ireland. In an addendum, she said the judgment was final and that she could not revisit its findings or consider new evidence. After concluding settlement was unlikely, she amended the order on 13 February: the children were to be returned, with a 10-day stay, conditional on the mother filing an appeal within that period. If an appeal was filed, the stay would continue until the first return date in the Court of Appeal.
The addendum also dealt with the father’s admitted breach of the in-camera order after he sent a link to the earlier judgment to a school principal. The judge accepted his apology and undertaking not to repeat a similar disclosure without prior court permission. She made no order on his request for access during a holiday.