The High Court has remitted a case concerning custody and financial provision for two children to the Circuit Court in County “C”, where the judge may decide whether to arrange early case management. The court also adjourned all other matters, including an application for interim maintenance, to the Circuit Court.
The case was brought by the children’s mother under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. The children, identified in the judgment as A.A. and B.B., were born in 1997 and 2000. Their parents were not married to each other. The mother’s summons sought custody, maintenance, financial security for the children, and other relief. Those were claims in the proceedings, not findings made in this judgment.
The immediate issue before Mr Justice Henry Abbott was whether the action should remain in the High Court or be remitted. The respondent sought remittal, arguing that the Circuit Family Court had jurisdiction and could hear the matter sooner. The respondent had earlier made an open offer of €300 a week in maintenance, according to the judgment; the court did not decide the amount of maintenance in this ruling.
The mother opposed remittal. She argued that the case involved complex legal questions, including whether the court could make lump-sum or other non-periodical financial orders for children whose parents were unmarried. She said she intended to call 11 witnesses and alleged that property had been concealed through transfers or conveyances in other people’s names. The judgment records these as her submissions; it makes no finding that assets were concealed.
The judge said time was important in resolving matters affecting the children’s welfare. He considered the likely length of the hearing, the availability of judicial resources, the prospect that a High Court hearing might not take place before October 2007, and the apparent willingness of the local Circuit Court to accommodate a lengthy case. He also noted that most witnesses appeared likely to be from County “C” and that the children lived there.
Mr Justice Abbott concluded that remittal was the better option and said he was bound by the Supreme Court decision in D. v. D. He ordered the action remitted under Order 70A of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The parties were to inform the presiding Circuit Court judge of the remittal, so that judge could decide whether to arrange early case management. The High Court did not determine custody, maintenance, lump-sum relief, or the other substantive claims.