The High Court has ordered two boys to be returned to France after rejecting their father’s defence to an application under the Hague Convention on international child abduction. The court found that the children had been wrongfully retained in Ireland and that the evidence did not establish a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation if they returned to their mother’s care in France.
The boys, identified in the judgment as W and X, were aged 10 and four when they travelled from France to Ireland on 17 October 2020. They were due to return on 1 November. Their father, P.S., did not send them back after France announced that children over six would have to wear face masks at school. Their mother, C.T., applied for their return.
The father argued that wearing a mask posed a grave risk, particularly to W, and relied on a GP report stating that both boys had claustrophobia when wearing a mask. The judge attached relatively little weight to the reports. She noted that the messages between the parents did not describe either child becoming distressed or having difficulty breathing while wearing a mask. The court also said the father’s opposition to masks, rather than evidence of a specific risk to the children, was prominent in the messages. X, who was under six, would not be required to wear a mask at school in France.
The court also rejected the father’s other claims about the mother’s care. These included allegations of self-harm, threats with a knife and incidents involving X. The judge said the evidence did not prove the allegations to the degree required. She found that the admitted incident in which X was left alone for a few minutes was a trivial circumstance and did not show a grave risk. The judge also noted that the French court had ordered the boys to reside with their mother in November 2020.
W had been interviewed by a psychologist. The judge said his views could not be described as an objection to returning to France. She noted the assessor’s view that W’s relationship with his father should be nurtured, while finding that this did not alter the court’s duty to order the children’s return.
The judgment concludes that the father had not established a Convention defence. The court declined to place a stay on the order directing the boys’ return to their home in France.