The Court of Appeal dismissed a father’s appeal against High Court orders allowing the mother of his daughter to relocate with the child to the west coast of the United States. It found no valid ground to interfere with the orders and made no changes to the detailed contact arrangements.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Máire Whelan on 3 July 2019, concerned a child identified as I. and referred to as Isobel to protect her identity. The parents are identified only as S.K. and A.L. The child had lived in Ireland with her mother since 2012, while her father lived in England.
The mother and child travelled to the United States in August 2017. The mother said the move was initially intended to last six to eight weeks, but that her husband later received an enhanced work opportunity and the family decided to remain. The father disputed her account and said he had not agreed to a permanent move.
In May 2018, a California court ordered the child’s return to Ireland under the Hague Convention process. The mother consented to the return on a without-prejudice basis. She and the child returned to Dublin on 18 May 2018. The Court of Appeal noted that the mother had not admitted wrongful removal or retention.
In July 2018, the High Court granted the mother liberty to relocate with the child to the United States. It ordered advance notice to the father of certain changes to the mother’s residence or work affecting the child’s US home address, and set out holiday contact, including two 14-day summer periods, one week at Christmas and one week at Easter. The arrangements were to apply for 2019 and 2020 and be reviewed after two years. The High Court also refused the father’s requests for custody and a declaration concerning alleged wrongful retention.
The father challenged those decisions and sought changes to contact, including a mirror of the 2013 English order. The Court of Appeal said the appeal did not establish a basis for a custody order or a declaration under section 34 of the 1991 Act. It said the section had no application to these proceedings and that the Hague Convention return process had concluded when the child returned to Ireland.
The court also rejected the father’s attempt to pursue allegations of an unfair High Court hearing, because he had not obtained the hearing transcript despite directions to do so. It said there was no current evidence before it to justify changing access arrangements and that any variation would need up-to-date evidence showing it served the child’s best interests. The appeal was dismissed on all grounds.