A.Bu. -v- J.Be. [2010] IESC 39 (20 May 2010)

A.Bu. -v- J.Be. [2010] IESC 39 (20 May 2010)

The child S. B. was habitually resident in Latvia prior to removal. Both parents had joint custody under Latvian law, and the removal to Ireland was without the father's consent, constituting a wrongful removal under the Hague Convention. The appellant failed to establish a grave risk to the child if returned to Latvia. The appropriate forum for custody and access decisions is Latvia, not Ireland.

Citation
[2010] IESC 39
Parties
Applicant/respondent: A. Bu.; Respondent/appellant: J. Be.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal (child Abduction and Enforcement of Custody Orders Act, 1991; Hague Convention; Council Regulation 2201/2003) / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
International Child Abduction, Habitual Residence, Custody Rights, Grave Risk Exception, Jurisdiction Under Hague Convention
Family Law International Law Child Law International Child Abduction Habitual Residence Custody Rights Grave Risk Exception Jurisdiction Under Hague Convention

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. Bu.

Applicant/respondent

J. Be.

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (child Abduction and Enforcement of Custody Orders Act, 1991; Hague Convention; Council Regulation 2201/2003) / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the child's habitual residence was Latvia at the time of removal
  2. 2 Whether removal was wrongful under the Hague Convention
  3. 3 Whether rights of custody were being exercised or would have been exercised but for the removal

Ratio Decidendi

The child S. B. was habitually resident in Latvia prior to removal. Both parents had joint custody under Latvian law, and the removal to Ireland was without the father's consent, constituting a wrongful removal under the Hague Convention. The appellant failed to establish a grave risk to the child if returned to Latvia. The appropriate forum for custody and access decisions is Latvia, not Ireland.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • Return of the child S. B. to Latvia to the custody of the respondent (father), pending determination by Latvian courts.
  • Respondent (father) to provide undertakings regarding accommodation, financial support, and non-removal of the child from Latvia pending Latvian court orders.