The High Court stayed further Irish proceedings concerning three children until a Rhode Island court decides whether it will assume jurisdiction over disputes about their custody, access and living arrangements. Ms Justice Marie Baker said the order was limited in time and effect and did not decide whether the Irish proceedings could later be stayed while the substantive family dispute was heard elsewhere.
The case was brought by the children’s mother against their father under Irish legislation and the Hague Convention. The mother sought, among other relief, declarations that Ireland was the children’s habitual residence and that the father had wrongfully retained them in Rhode Island. The father sought a stay of the Irish proceedings pending the Rhode Island court’s jurisdiction decision.
The parents had divorced in 2008 in Rhode Island. Under arrangements made at that time, the mother had physical placement of the children and responsibility for day-to-day decisions. The children relocated to Ireland in 2009. In July 2014, while they were visiting their father in the United States, he obtained an emergency ex parte Rhode Island order giving him custody and placement pending further order. That order was vacated on the mother’s application in August.
Two children returned to Ireland and had resumed school there by the time of the Irish hearing. The son remained in Connecticut under an agreement between the parents and a temporary Rhode Island order, with school enrolment there to avoid disruption to his education.
Justice Baker concluded that the Irish case was not, at that point, properly characterised as Hague Convention proceedings. She said there was no current unlawful retention: the two younger children had returned, and the son remained in the United States under an order made by consent. She noted that any Hague Convention application the mother might have had was being pursued in Rhode Island.
The Rhode Island court had set September 12 and 15 to hear whether it had jurisdiction. Justice Baker found that it had not yet assumed jurisdiction, so there were not yet two established competing forums for the Irish court to assess under the forum non conveniens doctrine. If Rhode Island declined jurisdiction, the Irish proceedings could continue. If it accepted jurisdiction, a further application to stay the Irish case might follow, but the High Court expressed no view on whether such a stay could be granted.
The order pauses further Irish proceedings only until Rhode Island determines whether it has and will assume jurisdiction. The parties may apply for a permanent or indefinite stay depending on that outcome, and the matter was adjourned for mention and any further directions.