G. v F. (Child Abduction: Wrongful Retention and Settled Purpose) (Approved) [2023] IEHC 770 (14 November 2023)

G. v F. (Child Abduction: Wrongful Retention and Settled Purpose) (Approved) [2023] IEHC 770 (14 November 2023)

The Court found that the parties left their habitual residence with a settled purpose to reside in Ireland, and the Applicant left Spain without any agreement that the Respondent and child would follow him. There was no wrongful removal or retention within the meaning of the Hague Convention, as the Applicant did not request the child's return nor initiate proceedings until much later. The Respondent's actions did not breach the Applicant's custody rights, and the application for summary return was refused.

Citation
[2023] IEHC 770
Parties
Applicant: G.; Respondent: F.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
14 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Child Abduction (hague Convention) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Wrongful Retention, Habitual Residence, Hague Convention, Asylum Proceedings
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Wrongful Retention Habitual Residence Hague Convention Asylum 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G.

Applicant

F.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Abduction (hague Convention) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether wrongful retention occurred under the Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether the parties moved with a settled purpose to reside elsewhere
  3. 3 Implications for parallel asylum application

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the parties left their habitual residence with a settled purpose to reside in Ireland, and the Applicant left Spain without any agreement that the Respondent and child would follow him. There was no wrongful removal or retention within the meaning of the Hague Convention, as the Applicant did not request the child's return nor initiate proceedings until much later. The Respondent's actions did not breach the Applicant's custody rights, and the application for summary return was refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • No order for summary return of the child
  • Asylum application to proceed as per statutory process