The High Court refused an application to return two children to Lithuania under the Hague Convention, finding that the evidence did not establish that their habitual residence had changed from Ireland during a short period in 2012 and 2013.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 27 March 2014, Mr Justice Michael White said the dispute concerned the children’s habitual residence, rather than an exception under Article 13 of the Convention. The court said the parents’ rights of custody were being exercised by the applicant; the contested issue was where the children were habitually resident immediately before their return to Ireland.
The parents had lived and worked in Ireland from September 2004. Both children were born in Dublin and held Irish and Lithuanian citizenship. The family went to Lithuania with the children in September 2012. The applicant said the parents intended to settle there permanently, and that they had surrendered their Dublin lease by mutual agreement and moved their belongings. The respondent said the applicant’s return to Lithuania with the belongings was without her consent and disputed that the parents had lived together there.
The judgment recorded serious conflicts in the evidence about the move, the lease, the removal of joint property, the parties’ relationship in Lithuania, the children’s schooling and the respondent’s employment intentions. It also noted the respondent’s allegations of violence, which the applicant denied. The court did not resolve these disputes.
The applicant returned to Ireland on 17 September 2012 and went back to Lithuania in mid-October with the parties’ belongings. The respondent returned to Ireland with the children in March 2013. The court said the children’s habitual residence had been Ireland up to 17 September 2012. It could not conclude, on the evidence, that this had changed to Lithuania in the intervening period.
The court therefore held that Ireland was the appropriate jurisdiction to resolve the conflict and refused the return relief sought in the summary Hague Convention proceedings. The judgment addressed that application; it did not determine the underlying disputed accounts of the family’s move.