The High Court has refused Q’s appeal against the Circuit Court’s refusal to pause an interim order allowing P and their two children to move from Place X to Place Y. The decision concerns only a stay pending appeal; it does not decide the underlying relocation appeal or what should happen after the Circuit Court’s planned review in December 2020.
The Circuit Court made its order on 4 September 2020, allowing the move and setting access arrangements, with a review in three months. Q sought a stay while appealing that order. Q’s appeal against the refusal of a stay reached the High Court out of time because the perfected Circuit Court order was not issued until 22 September, after the appeal deadline. The High Court heard the appeal anyway, finding an arguable issue concerning the children’s custody and location and saying their best interests supported hearing it.
Q’s counsel argued that the move risked weakening the children’s relationships with their father, disrupted their established lives in Place X and could make a return harder as they settled in Place Y. Counsel also raised concerns about schooling, costs and P’s earlier statements about moving. P’s counsel disputed the alienation allegation and submitted that the children were settling into their schools in Place Y. Counsel said a stay could require another school move for about six weeks, followed potentially by a further move after the Circuit Court review.
The High Court assessed the children’s best interests under section 31 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. It noted that the Circuit Court judge had heard evidence from both parents over two days and had set a thorough review for early December. With that review about six weeks away, the High Court considered it was not in the children’s interests to disturb the interim arrangements or move them between schools again mid-term. It also said that the children’s views about which school to attend for that short period would not be meaningful to ascertain and that doing so could unsettle them.
The High Court therefore declined to grant the stay. It noted that the decision could affect P’s new employment, but said the children’s best interests made it unnecessary to rely on that consideration. The Circuit Court’s December review remained open: the High Court expressly said its decision did not determine what the Circuit Court would decide then, or the outcome of the full appeal.