Judgment: 2010-07-13 · Court archive

High Court orders four-year-old returned to Czech Republic under Hague Convention

The court found that the father’s consent covered only a one-month trip to Ireland and that the child’s continued stay was unlawful. It directed her speedy return and set arrangements for a handover.

High Court · [2010] IEHC 424

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • John MacMenamin (Judge)
What

The court found that the father’s consent covered only a one-month trip to Ireland and that the child’s continued stay was unlawful. It directed her speedy return and set arrangements for a handover.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Czech Republic
  • Ireland
  • Prague Airport
  • Prague
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The judgment, delivered on 13 July 2010, gave reasons for an order first made ex tempore on 10 July. The court said the child was born in the Czech Republic and was subject to a Czech District Court order made on 28 November 2008. That order placed her in her mother’s custody and required her father to pay maintenance. The parents were unmarried but, under Czech law, both held rights of custody.

The High Court ordered the return to the Czech Republic of a four-year-old girl who had remained in Ireland beyond a one-month trip authorised by her father. Mr Justice John MacMenamin said the child’s continued retention in Ireland was unlawful and directed that she be returned forthwith under the Hague Convention on international child abduction.

The judgment, delivered on 13 July 2010, gave reasons for an order first made ex tempore on 10 July. The court said the child was born in the Czech Republic and was subject to a Czech District Court order made on 28 November 2008. That order placed her in her mother’s custody and required her father to pay maintenance. The parents were unmarried but, under Czech law, both held rights of custody.

The father had given written consent for the child to travel with her mother outside the Czech Republic from 24 April to 24 May 2009. The mother said she understood that he had agreed to a longer stay, and argued that the child had become habitually resident in Ireland. She also relied on the child’s newborn half-brother and said a return would create an intolerable situation. These were submissions and claims the judge rejected.

The father denied agreeing to an extension. He said the mother had told him twice that she would return with the child, and that he travelled to Prague Airport on both occasions, including in November 2009, but they did not arrive. The judge treated this evidence as uncontradicted and inconsistent with consent or acquiescence. He also noted that the father had revived custody proceedings in the Czech Republic before applying for the child’s return in Ireland.

The court found no evidence of a grave risk or intolerable situation meeting the Convention’s high threshold. It also found no evidence that the child had established habitual residence in Ireland. The judge said the Czech courts retained jurisdiction and that the Irish court had to direct her return.

After the initial order, the court was told the mother was unwilling to accompany the child or cooperate with its implementation. The judge refused a stay, citing the need for speed in return proceedings. He directed the gardaí to attend at 5pm the following Thursday for the handover, ordered that the child not be removed from Ireland, and directed that garda authorities be informed and an emergency passport provided. The father undertook not to initiate or take part in criminal proceedings against the mother for the child’s abduction.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review