The High Court has ordered two children who were taken from England to Ireland to be returned to England, despite finding that they had settled in their new environment.
In a judgment delivered on 24 August 2006, Gilligan J. ruled on an application under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The children’s father sought their return after their mother brought them to Ireland on 6 April 2005. The parents’ identities and the children’s names are redacted in the judgment.
The mother said she had told the father in advance of the move and given him her address. He denied receiving that information. The parties also disputed who sent a letter dated 5 April 2005, which said the mother and children would move to Birmingham. The judge found, on the balance of probabilities, that the father did not know where the children had been taken on 6 April. He also found that the disputed letter had no material effect on the father’s actions. Neither party had obtained handwriting evidence.
The court rejected the mother’s claim that the father had consented to or later acquiesced in the move. It found that he had continued to pursue contact through the English family courts and sought help to locate the children. The return proceedings began on 24 April 2006, more than a year after the move. The judge applied the Convention’s one-year provision and found the children were settled in Ireland. He noted their schooling, friendships and activities, as well as their mother’s work and living arrangements.
The older child, then nine, told a court-appointed psychiatrist that she preferred to stay in Ireland. The psychiatrist considered her objection age-appropriate and, as far as she could assess, independently formed. The child described being happy at school and having friends, but also said she was sad about losing contact with her father. The judge noted that the child’s objection was based on her life in Ireland, not on any objection to her father.
Although the judge accepted that returning the children would cause considerable upset, he concluded that their long-term best interests outweighed the basis of the older child’s objection. He exercised his discretion under Article 18 of the Convention to order both children’s return to England. The judgment concluded by inviting submissions from counsel on the form of the necessary order; it did not set out the final order’s terms.