F. -v- G. [2014] IEHC 153 (07 March 2014)
The Court refused to make a direct mirror order of the California custody order, instead making only those auxiliary or ancillary orders necessary to protect the child's welfare during the child's transient presence in Ireland. The Court refused to accept the applicant's undertaking not to initiate further proceedings, as it would be contrary to public policy and the Court's statutory and constitutional obligations regarding child welfare. The Court also refused to make declarations of fact regarding parentage and habitual residence, finding no jurisdiction to do so in the circumstances.
- Citation
- [2014] IEHC 153
- Parties
- Applicant: F.; Respondent: G.
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 07 March 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Family Law Guardianship/custody / Post Judgment Order Determination Following Main Judgment
- Outcome
- Partially granted; auxiliary custody and access orders made; undertaking and declarations refused.
- Legal Topics
- Guardianship of Infants, Custody Orders, Mirror Orders, Habitual Residence, Jurisdiction, Child Welfare
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
F.
Applicant
G.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Family Law Guardianship/custody / Post Judgment Order Determination Following Main Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Irish High Court should make an order equivalent to a foreign (California) custody order ('mirror order')
- 2 Whether the Court should accept an undertaking from the applicant not to initiate further custody proceedings in Ireland
- 3 Whether the Court should make declarations of fact regarding parentage and habitual residence
Ratio Decidendi
The Court refused to make a direct mirror order of the California custody order, instead making only those auxiliary or ancillary orders necessary to protect the child's welfare during the child's transient presence in Ireland. The Court refused to accept the applicant's undertaking not to initiate further proceedings, as it would be contrary to public policy and the Court's statutory and constitutional obligations regarding child welfare. The Court also refused to make declarations of fact regarding parentage and habitual residence, finding no jurisdiction to do so in the circumstances.
Court Disposition
Partially granted; auxiliary custody and access orders made; undertaking and declarations refused.
Orders
- Joint custody of the child granted to both parties under section 11(2)(a) of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964.
- Applicant to exercise primary care and control of the child.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment