The District Court has found that courts in the United Kingdom are better placed to hear a child care case concerning a child identified as F, but has not ordered a transfer. The court adjourned the remaining part of its Article 15 inquiry to 25 October 2017.
The decision followed earlier rulings that the District Court had jurisdiction under Article 13 of the EU Brussels IIa Regulation. The Child and Family Agency withdrew its Article 15 application on 28 September 2017. The court then considered whether it could examine a possible transfer on its own initiative.
The court found that F’s UK citizenship established a particular connection with the UK under Article 15(3)(c), despite F also being an Irish citizen. It did not rule on whether a separate connection arose from a parental-responsibility holder’s habitual residence. It also concluded that the question of whether parties would accept a transfer arose only after the court had considered whether transfer was warranted.
The Agency and the guardian ad litem initially argued that a move of the case could harm F’s interests if it meant F had to move to the UK. The judge said it was not apparent that transferring proceedings required transferring the child. The issue was left open. The Agency later submitted that UK courts were better placed and a transfer would serve F’s interests, provided F did not move before the case’s final determination. The court also concluded that splitting off only part of the case would not be practical.
In assessing which court could provide “genuine and specific added value”, the judge focused on evidence concerning F’s older sibling, R, who had suffered non-accidental injuries and was in care in the UK. The judgment said evidence about R was crucial to decisions concerning F. The UK records included police, phone, hospital and medical material. The judge considered their admissibility in Ireland uncertain and noted that D, whom the judgment described as an essential witness, could not be compelled to testify by the Irish court.
The court rejected the suggestion that the main reason F was in care was a report by Dr K, saying the proceedings arose from the risk connected with what had happened to R. It also found that the length of social-work intervention in Ireland, compared with the shorter UK intervention, was not necessarily decisive.
The judge concluded that the UK courts were better placed to hear the case. The remaining Article 15 issues—including outstanding information and an attachment assessment report—were left for the adjourned hearing. The decision did not determine the substantive child care case or finally decide whether the case would be transferred.