The Court of Appeal has declined to order three children to return to Sweden, finding that their mother acquiesced in their continued residence in Ireland while she sought to regularise her immigration status. The court said the children should remain in Ireland pending resolution of custody and access proceedings.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Hyland on 10 July 2025, concerned an appeal by the father against a High Court order directing the children’s return to Sweden under the Hague Convention. The mother had sought their return after they had been in Ireland for almost two years. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s findings that she had not freely consented to their departure and that the children had not met the Convention’s test for being settled in Ireland. It set aside the High Court’s finding that she had not subsequently acquiesced.
The children left Sweden with their father on 24 September 2022, when they were aged eight, seven and five. Their mother accompanied them to the airport. The father argued that she had agreed to the move and later accepted the children’s residence in Ireland. She said apparent consent and acquiescence had been caused by pressure and threats.
The appeal court upheld the High Court’s conclusion that the father had not established that the mother’s consent to the departure was free and unequivocal. It also found no error in the decision that the children were not settled in Ireland for the purposes of the Convention. They were attending school, doing well and had made friends, but the evidence did not establish a wider connection to the community or the emotional security and stability required by the test.
On acquiescence, the Court of Appeal considered the period from the children’s arrival in Ireland until 14 July 2024, when the mother sought their return. During that time she sent packages, kept in contact with the children and their school, visited them in Ireland, and took no steps to seek their summary return. The court said her evidence showed she had waited until her immigration position was resolved and then pursued family reunification. She acted under the Hague Convention after the father told Swedish authorities he did not consent to the children returning through that route. The court concluded that her delay reflected that plan, rather than continuing coercion or fear.
The court also considered an assessor’s concerns that the father had influenced the children’s views and that this caused them distress. It said those concerns should be addressed in custody and access proceedings, which can examine the children’s welfare with fuller evidence. The appeal court’s decision does not determine custody or access. It refused the mother’s request to order return on welfare grounds, and left the High Court costs order unaffected while making no order as to costs on appeal, subject to a short period for written submissions.