The High Court has appointed a woman’s former partner as joint guardian of her two children, while ordering that they remain in his custody in Ireland. The order followed a hearing on 8 and 9 July 2013 about disputed matters arising from a summary summons. The court also adjourned related plenary proceedings generally, leaving them open for future consideration.
The applicant is not the children’s biological father. Their mother, the respondent, had not married either child’s father. The children, identified in the judgment as J. and C., were 14 and 11 at the time. The applicant had cared for them for years and held custody under earlier District Court orders, as well as orders made in England and Wales during Hague proceedings.
The dispute followed a history of moves between Ireland and England, earlier involvement by the Health Service Executive, and repeated court proceedings about the children’s care and contact. In June 2010, the respondent took the children to England in breach of District Court orders. An English court later ordered their return to Dublin, with undertakings from both adults. The High Court said the children returned to live full-time with the applicant and found that the respondent had not maintained a home for them in Ireland or pursued social assistance there as undertaken.
At the 2013 hearing, a child psychologist gave evidence supporting the applicant’s role in providing stability. The judgment records that C. had expressed a wish to live with her mother in Cornwall, while J. wanted to remain with the applicant. The psychologist strongly advised against separating the children, describing their relationship as a continuing source of security. The respondent told the court she wanted the children to live with her and said she would seek housing in Cornwall if they did.
The judge found that the respondent had abandoned the children within the meaning of section 16 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 and had not satisfied the court that she was fit to have custody. Those are the court’s findings, not merely allegations by the applicant. The judge concluded that the children’s interests required the applicant to have sole custody in this jurisdiction and a decisive, supportive role in their lives.
The resulting order appointed the applicant guardian jointly with the respondent, with the joint guardianship to continue under existing arrangements until further order. The court’s decision addressed guardianship and custody; it did not transfer sole guardianship to the applicant. It also said that an order of this kind could be made by a court of limited jurisdiction in future exceptional cases. The separate plenary proceedings were adjourned generally as a fallback in case the decision in the private law proceedings was found to be incorrect.