The High Court has refused to order the return of a 14-year-old child to Lithuania after finding that his father had established both a grave-risk defence and the child's objection to returning under the Hague Convention.
Ms Justice Nuala Jackson delivered judgment on May 1 in proceedings brought by the child's mother, who alleged that the father had wrongfully removed or retained the child in Ireland in the summer of 2025. The father accepted that the child had been habitually resident in Lithuania, that the mother had rights of custody and that the removal was wrongful for Convention purposes.
The court nevertheless found that returning the child would expose him to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation. The judge relied on the father's uncontroverted affidavit evidence, a Lithuanian child-protection assessment, the child's account to an appointed reporter and a March 2026 Lithuanian court decision.
The evidence before the High Court included allegations of serious deficiencies in the mother's care, including alcohol and medication abuse, periods when the child was left without adequate care and exposure to people he feared. Those matters were not answered by a further affidavit from the mother.
The judge also found that the child, who expressed affection for Lithuania and in some respects preferred life there, nevertheless clearly objected to returning because he feared for his safety in the circumstances that would await him.
A separate defence that the mother had not been exercising her custody rights was rejected. The court found her engagement with the child may have been deficient but did not amount to abandonment or non-exercise of those rights.
The ruling settles the Hague Convention return application: the mother's requested relief was refused. It does not determine wider custody arrangements independently of the Lithuanian proceedings. The judge noted that the District Court of Siauliai had on March 10 permitted the child to relocate to Ireland with his father, but she did not know whether that decision had been appealed. The case was listed again for May 12 for any consequential matters.