A District Court judge was unable to determine the habitual residence of a child identified as F, leaving the child’s long-term future unresolved amid continuing care proceedings.
In a decision dated 1 March 2017, Judge Brendan Toale considered which date should be used to assess the court’s jurisdiction under an EU regulation on parental responsibility. He ruled that the relevant proceedings began in 2016, rather than treating earlier proceedings and a period of voluntary care as continuous. The relevant date fell between 29 July and 9 August 2016; the judge said it did not matter which date within that range applied.
F was born in Ireland in July 2015 and had spent the child’s life there. F had been in the care of the Child and Family Agency since birth, first under a voluntary arrangement and, from 9 August 2016, under interim care orders that had been extended. A separate care order application issued in 2016 had not yet been opened or given a hearing date; it stood adjourned to 8 March 2017.
The judge weighed F’s time in Ireland, Irish nationality and attachment to foster carers against the circumstances of the placement, the limited contact with birth family, and the agency’s long-term plan under consideration at the relevant date. That plan was for F not to return to the mother’s care and potentially to be placed with a sibling in the mother’s home state. The judge found, on the balance of probabilities, that the mother had travelled to Ireland and remained there primarily to avoid the attention of child protection authorities in that state. This was a finding about the mother’s reasons, not a determination of F’s habitual residence elsewhere.
The judgment concluded that F’s presence in Ireland had not been shown to be non-temporary and that the required degree of integration in a social or family environment had not been established. However, the judge also said the evidence did not establish habitual residence in another member state or elsewhere. He was therefore unable to establish F’s habitual residence.
The decision addressed jurisdiction under the regulation. It did not resolve the pending care order application or determine a long-term placement for F. The judge said the child’s future should be resolved as soon as possible.