The High Court declined a father’s appeal to reinstate an earlier custody and access order, giving significant weight to the wishes of his 12-year-old child, Edward. Mr Justice Henry Abbott said Edward had matured and should have a degree of self-determination, subject to the details in the order made by the court.
The appeal concerned arrangements previously made by the Circuit Court after Edward left his father’s custody during a holiday and returned to his mother’s home. The father said the original High Court arrangements should be restored, including Edward attending school J. He alleged that the mother’s partner, identified in the judgment as Seanie, and the mother’s two daughters had helped organise the escape. The mother denied involvement and said Edward was unhappy at school J and had fallen behind in mathematics. These were parties’ accounts and submissions, not findings that they had organised the escape.
The Circuit Court had preserved the situation at the mother’s home and appointed a solicitor as guardian ad litem, after which the case was heard by another Circuit Court judge. The High Court judge said the appointment appeared contrary to the earlier High Court judgment and the law. He offered to state a case for the Supreme Court if the mother pursued the issue and obtained approval for the costs arrangements. The judgment says the High Court made orders on the record and adjourned the case for mention and consideration of developments concerning the purported appointment and costs.
The judge spoke with Edward in court without the lawyers or parties present. Edward said he wanted to live with his mother, would comply with access arrangements, and preferred B. school for secondary education. He described feeling unhappy at school J and spoke about rugby, Gaelic football and athletics. The judge said he gave particular weight to Edward’s views because he considered the child had taken responsibility for his future. He also recognised benefits from the father’s care.
The court’s findings referred to Edward attending B. school and said the details of existing schooling would be addressed in the order. The judge said the child should be able to lead activities during access, including rugby, while the father had objected to driving him to matches during access time. He also directed that school information from the primary school in L. be regularised. The judgment does not reproduce the full terms of the orders made on the record, so the precise custody and access provisions cannot be stated from this source alone.