The Court of Appeal has dismissed a father’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing to order his young son’s return to Brazil under the Hague Convention on international child abduction.
The appeal court agreed that the child was habitually resident in Ireland on 15 May 2024, the accepted date on which the mother retained him in Ireland against the father’s wishes. It concluded that the child had never acquired habitual residence in Brazil, so there was no wrongful retention under the Convention and no basis for a return order.
The child was born in Ireland in 2019 to an Irish mother and Brazilian father. He lived with his parents and maternal grandparents in Dublin until the family moved to Brazil in September 2022. He was then three. The family returned to Ireland in January 2024, initially staying with the mother’s parents. The child started preschool locally and joined in an Easter play. After a brief period living in rented accommodation with the father, the mother and child returned to her parents’ home.
The parents disagreed about the purpose of the move to Brazil and the January 2024 trip to Ireland. The father said the move was intended to establish family life in Brazil and that the Irish trip was temporary. The mother described the move as a trial and did not want to return to Brazil. The appeal court noted that the father’s lack of consent to the child remaining in Ireland was relevant, but not decisive: habitual residence depended on a multifactorial assessment of the child’s integration and connection with each country.
In its review of the High Court decision, the Court of Appeal applied a limited deferential approach to findings made on affidavit evidence. It found no material error in the trial judge’s treatment of disputed or uncontroverted evidence. The judgment highlighted that the child spoke English but not Portuguese, had not attended preschool in Brazil, and had limited opportunities to socialise there beyond his parents and family. His mother, his primary carer, had not integrated into life in Brazil. The child, by contrast, had established family and social connections in Ireland before the move and quickly reconnected with family, preschool and local activities after returning.
The court held that the child did not lose his Irish habitual residence or acquire Brazilian habitual residence during the family’s time in Brazil. It therefore said the question of whether he later reacquired Irish habitual residence did not arise. The appeal was dismissed; the court did not order the child’s return to Brazil.