The High Court declined a mother’s application to move with her two sons from Ireland to Spain, finding that the proposal carried a substantial risk of greatly reducing the children’s contact with their father. The decision concerned a Family Law Circuit Court appeal and was delivered on 15 April 2011 by Mr Justice John MacMenamin.
The redacted judgment identifies the parties as U.V., the applicant mother, and V.U., the respondent father. The parents had joint guardianship and a joint custody order. The father’s regular access included alternate weekends with two overnight stays and weekday visits on the other weekends. The boys were described as being close to both parents.
The mother sought permission to live in Spain with the children. The court accepted that the proposal was motivated by a wish to start a new life with family support and a better chance of finding work, rather than to cut off the father’s relationship with the boys. It also recognised the mother’s insecure finances and the social and economic arguments for returning to Spain.
Expert evidence supported relocation in principle, and evidence from a Spanish social worker described available schooling, healthcare and support services. But the judge identified gaps in the practical arrangements for maintaining contact. The evidence did not establish how the boys would travel between the two countries, who would accompany them, whether flight connections would work with school schedules, or how the father could afford regular travel. The psychologist considered a joint parenting plan essential, but the parents had not produced one.
The court also found that the children’s views had not been adequately obtained. The judge said the older boy was able to assist the court and perhaps the younger boy too, but did not force an interview after the mother opposed it. The judgment said a parent could not veto a child’s right to be heard when the child’s age and maturity made that appropriate. It also identified insufficient evidence about how the older boy’s special educational and medical needs would be met after a move.
The judge concluded that the boys’ close relationships with both parents outweighed the advantages of relocation at that time. He was not satisfied their relationship with their father could be protected under the proposed arrangements and considered there was a substantial risk that contact would be greatly reduced. The application was declined; the court did not make an order permitting relocation to Spain.
The judgment stressed that the outcome was not a vindication of either parent and was not an invitation to make another application. It noted that decisions affecting children may be revisited if circumstances change.