F.G. v H.I.G. (child abduction, habitual residency, grave risk, child's objection, discretion) (Approved) [2026] IEHC 105 (18 February 2026)

F.G. v H.I.G. (child abduction, habitual residency, grave risk, child's objection, discretion) (Approved) [2026] IEHC 105 (18 February 2026)

The applicant established that R was habitually resident in England, the applicant had and was exercising rights of custody, and there was no consent to removal. The grave risk defence was not established due to lack of evidence and ongoing protective measures in England. The child's objection defence was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] IEHC 105
Parties
Applicant: F. G.; Respondent: H. I. G.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Child Abduction Under Hague Convention / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Return of child to England ordered
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Hague Convention, Habitual Residence, Grave Risk Defence, Child's Objection, Court Discretion
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Hague Convention Habitual Residence Grave Risk Defence Child's Objection Court Discretion

Source-derived case record

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F. G.

Applicant

H. I. G.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Abduction Under Hague Convention / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the removal of R from England to Ireland was wrongful under the Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether the grave risk defence under Article 13(b) is established
  3. 3 Whether the child's objections defence under Article 13 is established

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant established that R was habitually resident in England, the applicant had and was exercising rights of custody, and there was no consent to removal. The grave risk defence was not established due to lack of evidence and ongoing protective measures in England. The child's objection defence was established, but the court, exercising its discretion, found that the objectives of the Convention and R's welfare required his return to England, given risk-taking behaviour in Ireland, lack of appropriate parenting by the respondent, and the availability of social services and court oversight in England.

Court Disposition

Return of child to England ordered

Orders

  • Return of R to England forthwith, not later than 21st February 2026
  • Lifting of in camera rule in respect of the RMOF report