Judgment: 2023-04-20 · Court archive

High Court orders Sofia’s immediate return to Latvia in Hague Convention case

The court found that the mother had not proved the father consented to the move and gave little or no weight to the child’s views, which it found had been influenced by others.

High Court · [2023] IEHC 379

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Sofia
  • Mary Rose Gearty (Judge)
What

The court found that the mother had not proved the father consented to the move and gave little or no weight to the child’s views, which it found had been influenced by others.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Latvia
  • Ireland
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has ordered Sofia, an anonymised minor, to be returned immediately to Latvia after finding that her mother had not proved that her father consented to her move to Ireland. The judgment was delivered by Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty on 20 April 2023 in proceedings under the Child Abduction and Enforcement of Custody Orders Act 1991 and the Hague Convention.

The High Court has ordered Sofia, an anonymised minor, to be returned immediately to Latvia after finding that her mother had not proved that her father consented to her move to Ireland. The judgment was delivered by Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty on 20 April 2023 in proceedings under the Child Abduction and Enforcement of Custody Orders Act 1991 and the Hague Convention.

The father applied for Sofia’s return. The court said Latvia was her habitual residence in July 2022 and that the father’s custody rights were not in issue. The mother relied on consent and asked the court to consider the child’s views. She also raised grave risk.

The mother said the father had given verbal consent in phone calls but provided no dates, messages or written confirmation. A 2014 separation agreement required written consent for either parent to take Sofia abroad on holiday. The judge considered it more likely that a permanent move would also have required written consent. On the balance of probabilities, the mother had not proved consent.

The court refused the mother’s late requests to cross-examine the father and to file a further affidavit from her sister and brother-in-law, who were said to have heard a phone conversation about the move. The judge found that the proposed evidence had not been identified earlier and that a screenshot showing a call would not independently establish what was said. The court also refused an adjournment for a second assessment of Sofia’s views. Although the assessor reported that Sofia’s English was limited, the judge found she could express basic ideas and that a further report was unlikely to provide a more authentic account.

The assessor reported that Sofia’s answers included repeated phrases she could not explain and that she said her mother and sister had told her what to say. The judge also considered school records describing Sofia as happy and popular in Latvia, which conflicted with claims that she had no friends there. The judge found that her views had been influenced by others and said they could carry little or no weight. The court concluded that her authentic views could not then be determined.

The judge rejected the grave-risk defence, describing the submission as speculative and finding that the facts did not support it. The court’s order was for Sofia’s immediate return to Latvia. The judgment does not state further arrangements for carrying out the return.

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