Child and Family Agency -v- RD [2014] IESC 47 (18 July 2014)

Child and Family Agency -v- RD [2014] IESC 47 (18 July 2014)

The Irish courts lack substantive jurisdiction as the child is habitually resident in England and the English courts were first seized. The High Court's declaration under Article 17 was correct. The decision on return under Article 20 must consider new developments, including the mother's separation from the father and the position of Birmingham City Council. The appeal against the Article 17 declaration is dismissed; the Article 20 appeal is adjourned to allow the English court to clarify whether immediate return is required.

Citation
[2014] IESC 47
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Child and Family Agency; Respondent/appellant: R D
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal (urgent) From High Court Decision Under Childcare Act 1991 and Council Regulation (ec) No. 2201/2003 / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal; Article 17 Appeal Dismissed, Article 20 Appeal Adjourned
Outcome
Appeal against Article 17 declaration dismissed; appeal against Article 20 order adjourned for one week for clarification from English court.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction in Child Care Proceedings, Habitual Residence of Minor, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Provisional and Protective Measures Under Brussels II Bis, Child Welfare and Best Interests, Domestic Violence and Parental Responsibility
Family Law Child Law International Private Law Jurisdiction in Child Care Proceedings Habitual Residence of Minor Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Provisional and Protective Measures Under Brussels II Bis Child Welfare and Best Interests +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Child and Family Agency

Applicant/respondent

R D

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (urgent) From High Court Decision Under Childcare Act 1991 and Council Regulation (ec) No. 2201/2003 / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal; Article 17 Appeal Dismissed, Article 20 Appeal Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Irish courts have jurisdiction under Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 regarding parental responsibility for the minor
  2. 2 Whether to order the return of the child to England under Article 20 of the Regulation
  3. 3 Whether the High Court was correct in its findings on habitual residence and jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Irish courts lack substantive jurisdiction as the child is habitually resident in England and the English courts were first seized. The High Court's declaration under Article 17 was correct. The decision on return under Article 20 must consider new developments, including the mother's separation from the father and the position of Birmingham City Council. The appeal against the Article 17 declaration is dismissed; the Article 20 appeal is adjourned to allow the English court to clarify whether immediate return is required.

Court Disposition

Appeal against Article 17 declaration dismissed; appeal against Article 20 order adjourned for one week for clarification from English court.

Orders

  • Dismissal of appeal against High Court's Article 17 declaration (English courts have jurisdiction)
  • Adjournment of appeal against Article 20 order for one week to allow Birmingham City Council and/or Child and Family Agency to seek English court's view on necessity of immediate return