The High Court vacated an order for the attachment of a father and struck out a motion seeking his attachment and committal, finding that the matter was more appropriately dealt with in the District Court.
In a reserved judgment delivered on 2 February 2015, Mr Justice Henry Abbott said the Irish High Court did not have an access order before it and that no access order was currently in force. The children were habitually resident in Ireland and in their father’s care under an order made by an English court, he said. Future access matters fell within the Irish courts’ jurisdiction, but did not need to be heard in the High Court.
The proceedings arose after an English family court ordered the children’s return to Ireland under the Hague Convention in January 2014. That order was enforced in Ireland by the High Court Master in April 2014. The mother later sought to vary the English order in Ireland, but was told the Irish High Court could not vary it. In December 2014, the High Court granted her liberty to seek the father’s attachment and committal for alleged non-compliance with the Irish enforcement order. An attachment order followed on 12 December.
The judge said the English order addressed the children’s return to Ireland, not access. It recorded proposed contact arrangements, including telephone calls, school holiday contact and weekend contact. He held that these were recorded views of the parties and did not amount to a binding access order.
The English order also recorded undertakings by both parents. The father undertook, subject to Irish law, to use his best endeavours to stop or not support child-abduction prosecutions against the mother. The mother undertook to return the children after agreed contact and not to remove them from Ireland. Mr Justice Abbott said the relevant undertaking lacked the clarity required for enforcement.
The judge noted that proceedings to enforce the orders were also before Letterkenny District Court and had been stayed pending the High Court case. He said the judgment could be sent to that court to explain the High Court’s approach, while making clear that it was not intended to interfere with the District Court’s independent jurisdiction.