The High Court has proposed ordering a 12-year-old boy’s return to England and Wales after finding that his mother wrongfully removed and retained him in Ireland. The court rejected her grave-risk defence and, while finding that the boy objected to returning, gave his views low weight because they aligned with his mother’s.
In a judgment delivered on 18 January 2024, Mr Justice Conleth Bradley found that the boy was habitually resident in England and Wales before his mother, identified as B, moved with him to Ireland in August 2023. His father, A, had custody rights and had been exercising them under an informal arrangement that saw the boy live with B during the week and spend alternate weekends and holidays with A.
B and the boy travelled to Ireland for a holiday in August 2023. A agreed to extend it to 26 August. On that date, B told him she planned to remain in Ireland, had bought a property in the west of the country and had enrolled the boy in a local school without his knowledge or consent. B had sold her home in Wales. The judgment records that A had not agreed to the move or the boy’s continued stay in Ireland.
B argued that A had subjected her to coercive or controlling behaviour, creating an intolerable situation. These allegations were disputed. The judge said the return proceedings were not the forum to resolve conflicts about alleged behaviour between the parents. He found that B had not produced clear and compelling evidence that returning the boy would expose him to physical or psychological harm or place him in an intolerable situation. The court noted that the family assessor’s report said the boy was not fearful of A and wanted their relationship to continue.
The assessor reported that the boy objected to returning to the UK, citing the lifestyle he and his mother had developed in Ireland, his new school and rugby club, and the sale of their Welsh home. The judge found the objection was mild but real, and that the boy was mature enough for his views to be considered. He gave them low weight, however, because the report said the boy knew his mother wanted to stay in Ireland and that their wishes aligned.
In weighing the objection, the judge also considered the circumstances before the move, including school attendance concerns referred to social services, B’s email to the school saying the boy would not return, and the absence of an application for permission to relocate. He concluded that the boy could pursue his interests, resume schooling and maintain family relationships if returned to England and Wales.
The judgment finds that B wrongfully removed and retained the boy under the Hague Convention. It proposes an order for his return “forthwith” to England and Wales. The precise terms and any related matters were left for discussion at a further hearing listed for 19 January 2024; the judgment does not set out a final order’s terms.