The Court of Appeal has dismissed a mother’s appeal against a finding that her daughter remained habitually resident in France immediately before the mother kept the child in Ireland in July 2014. The decision leaves in place a High Court order directing the child’s return to the jurisdiction of the French courts, subject to undertakings given by the father.
The appeal concerned habitual residence only. The mother had initially challenged the High Court’s rejection of her argument that the child would face a grave risk if returned to France. At the start of the appeal hearing, however, her counsel said that ground was no longer pursued because of the father’s undertakings. The Court of Appeal therefore did not decide the grave-risk issue.
The parents and their daughter lived in France from the child’s birth in October 2013 until March 2014, when they travelled to Ireland to introduce her to the mother’s family. The father returned to France for work, while the mother and child stayed in Ireland. They made several trips between the two countries before returning to Ireland on 22 June 2014. The father said he understood that visit to be temporary and, on 18 July, emailed asking the mother to bring the child back to France by 20 July. She did not return with the child.
The mother had taken steps in Ireland, including applying for social welfare support and arranging Irish records for the child. The court also noted her intention to settle in Ireland. But it found that the father, who held parental authority, had consented to visits, not a permanent move. That absence of consent was relevant to assessing the mother’s intention, though it had to be weighed against the child’s other family and social connections.
The Court of Appeal said the assessment required consideration of all the circumstances, including the child’s age, time in each country, the reasons and conditions for the visits, and her connections through both parents. The child was very young and dependent on her mother, but had also spent time with her father in France shortly before the disputed retention.
The court concluded that the father had discharged the burden of establishing that the child’s habitual residence remained in France through 20 July 2014. It dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision. The court did not decide how much deference an appellate court should give to a High Court’s factual inferences based solely on affidavit evidence, leaving that question for another appeal.