The Supreme Court dismissed a mother’s appeal and affirmed an order for her daughter, identified in the judgment as S.B., to be returned to Latvia. The court said the return was to the child’s state of habitual residence so Latvian courts could decide custody and access. It did not decide which parent should have custody or access.
The appeal followed a High Court order made in March 2010. The High Court had found that the child’s removal from Latvia to Ireland in March 2009 was wrongful under the Hague Convention and directed her return to her father’s custody in Latvia. The Supreme Court upheld that order and judgment.
The parents had lived together when S.B. was born in Latvia in 2004 and initially exercised joint custody. The mother moved to Ireland around 2007, leaving the child with her father in Latvia. The Supreme Court recounted that the mother brought S.B. to Ireland for three months in 2008 and returned her to Latvia in September that year.
The parents gave conflicting accounts of the events in March 2009. The father said the mother took S.B. to Ireland after he had allowed the child to stay with her, without his knowledge or consent. The mother said they had made an oral agreement giving her custody and permission to take the child. The father denied that agreement. The Supreme Court concluded that the parents had joint custody, that the father had not consented to the removal and that his custody rights were breached. It also upheld the finding that he had been exercising those rights.
The mother alleged that the father’s alcohol use and conduct created a grave risk of harm if S.B. returned. He denied the allegations. The High Court had found that grave risk was not established, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on that ground, saying the mother had not met the required burden of proof.
The court noted undertakings offered by the father, including that the mother and child could stay in his Latvian apartment while the Latvian proceedings were pending, and that he would pay €285 monthly for the child’s care if the mother returned. The judgment said the father was asked to give the undertakings to the court; it did not state that they had already been made into final orders.
The Supreme Court said the Latvian court was expected to hear custody and access matters in June 2010. It emphasised that those decisions belonged to the Latvian courts, not the Irish court hearing the return appeal.