The High Court ordered a 14-year-old boy to be returned to England after finding that his removal to Ireland was wrongful under the Hague Convention on international child abduction. The court said it would hear counsel on the precise terms of the order and any undertakings needed to provide for his care after his return.
The boy, identified as P.H.L. in the case heading and as P in the judgment, had been living in Dublin with his mother. His father, who lives in the United Kingdom, applied for his return to his former place of habitual residence in England. The parents and child were described as British nationals.
The mother said she brought P to Ireland in February 2011 to relieve the stress he faced from Wiltshire social services. She said he feared being taken into care and strongly opposed returning. The father disputed aspects of the parents’ history and said he wanted to rebuild his relationship with his son. The court noted that a police investigation into an allegation of sexual abuse by the father had resulted in no further action; the father denied the allegation.
Reports before the court raised concerns about P’s limited education, social isolation, physical development and the mother’s cooperation with authorities. An independent psychologist found that P was intellectually mature but emotionally immature and had an extremely restricted experience of the world. P told the psychologist he wanted to remain in Dublin, but she considered he could not make an informed choice about his future living arrangements.
The judge criticised Wiltshire social services for the slow pace of intervention and the lack of effective home tuition. However, the court found the concerns about P’s welfare were well-founded and said there was no evidence of a campaign against the mother or bad faith by authorities. It was not satisfied that returning P to England posed a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or would place him in an intolerable situation. The judge said an English court could decide what welfare orders, if any, were needed.
The court also concluded that P had not reached the maturity needed for his objection to be taken into account under the Convention. It found that his views were heavily influenced by his close relationship with his mother and his lack of an independent relationship with his father.
The judge said P’s best interests required him to return to England with his mother, who would need to cooperate urgently with authorities to meet his educational and social needs. The court directed his return under Article 12, while reserving the detailed terms and ancillary undertakings for a further hearing.