The High Court refused an application to return three children to the United States after finding a grave risk that their mother could suffer a recurrent mental breakdown if ordered to return with them. The judgment, delivered by Michael White J on 2 September 2013, concerned an application under the Child Abduction and Enforcement of Custody Orders Act 1991 and the Hague Convention.
The children, identified as R, C and N, were US citizens and had been habitually resident in the United States. Their mother, J.C., retained them in Ireland after a family holiday without their father M.L.’s consent. The father applied for their return. The case was heard on 8 and 11 July 2013.
The court recorded serious disputes about the parents’ relationship and conduct, and said it could not determine the contested allegations. It found that both parents had substantially exaggerated complaints about the other. The judgment described the mother’s March 2012 hospital admission as a very serious mental breakdown, with suicidal ideation that posed a significant risk to her life at that time. She later stabilised with treatment in the United States.
An Irish doctor who examined the mother gave evidence that a forced return could seriously damage her mental health and that support from her family in Ireland was important to her continuing stability. The judge considered that opinion soundly based, while noting concern that the doctor had placed too much reliance on the mother’s subjective allegations about the father. The court nevertheless considered a recurrent breakdown on return a very real risk.
The children’s views were also considered following interviews and psychological reports. R and C said they wanted to remain in Ireland. The judge gave those views some weight but found them not ultimately persuasive, in part because of concerns that the children had discussed living conditions in the United States within the family. N was considered too immature for his expressed wishes to carry weight.
The court concluded that if the mother’s mental health broke down on return, that would create an intolerable situation for the children. It refused the return order, describing the decision as finely balanced and acknowledging that refusal would be an injustice to the father and restrict his relationship with the children.
The judge separately criticised the mother’s failure to ensure contact between the children and their father. The judgment said the refusal of a return order was not an excuse to refuse access in Ireland or the United States, and that the mother’s failure to seek permission from the US courts to relocate could not be relied on to deny visits there. The court did not decide the broader custody dispute.