The High Court has declared that a child was wrongfully removed from Latvia and ordered her return, but stayed the order until her presence is required in Latvia for a review of custody and access arrangements.
In a judgment delivered on 21 May 2008, Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan said the child, identified as K.R. in the case title and as K. in the judgment, was ten and had spent most of the previous three and a half years in Ireland. Her father had sought her return under the Hague Convention after she was brought from Latvia to Ireland in December 2005.
The parents agreed that the removal was unlawful. The issue at this rehearing was whether the child’s objection to returning should be taken into account under the Hague Convention and EU law. An earlier return order, made in December 2006 when the mother was not present or represented, had been set aside in December 2007 because the child had not been given the required opportunity to be heard.
A consultant psychologist, Edward Hogan, interviewed the child and gave evidence. He described her as mature, bright and robust, and said she clearly did not want to return to Latvia. He considered a forced return painful and unpleasant for her, while saying she could adapt if her mother returned and the environment was right. He also raised concern about her limited attachment to her father.
Justice Sheehan found the child’s objections were supported by reasonable and coherent grounds, including her schooling and friendships in Limerick and her family circumstances there. He accepted her views as those of a mature ten-year-old, but said they were not determinative. He also noted that she had good relations with her maternal aunt and grandmother in Latvia.
The father offered, on a without-prejudice basis, not to exercise his immediate custody rights following the child’s return while the Latvian court reviewed the arrangements. The judge concluded that a properly managed return with that undertaking would not be so injurious to the child’s interests as to justify exercising discretion in favour of her wishes.
The court therefore granted the father’s claims for a declaration of wrongful removal and an order returning the child to Latvia. It stayed the return order until the Latvian court requires the mother and child to attend its review. The mother must cooperate with the Latvian authorities and avoid causing delay, including by being available to receive their correspondence. The father is to commence the review proceedings.