D.M v V.K (Approved) [2022] IECA 207 (26 August 2022)

D.M v V.K (Approved) [2022] IECA 207 (26 August 2022)

The Court found no evidence that the applicant acquiesced in the wrongful removal of the children, as the delays and inactivity did not demonstrate acceptance of the changed circumstances. The children's objections were acknowledged, but the trial judge correctly applied the three-step test and exercised discretion in favour of return, considering the objectives of the Hague Convention and the facts. Delay did not amount to grave risk or justify refusal of return.

Citation
[2022] IECA 207
Parties
Applicant/respondent: D. M.; Respondent/appellant: V. K.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed.
Legal Topics
Hague Convention, Acquiescence, Children's Objections, Habitual Residence, Delay in Proceedings
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Hague Convention Acquiescence Children's Objections Habitual Residence Delay in Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. M.

Applicant/respondent

V. K.

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant acquiesced in the wrongful removal of children under Article 13 of the Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether the children's objections to return are sufficiently weighty to refuse summary return
  3. 3 Whether delay in proceedings constitutes a grave risk or affects the exercise of discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found no evidence that the applicant acquiesced in the wrongful removal of the children, as the delays and inactivity did not demonstrate acceptance of the changed circumstances. The children's objections were acknowledged, but the trial judge correctly applied the three-step test and exercised discretion in favour of return, considering the objectives of the Hague Convention and the facts. Delay did not amount to grave risk or justify refusal of return.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed.

Orders

  • Return of children A and B to Hungary as directed by the High Court
  • No order in respect of child C