M.J -v- S.O. [2018] IEHC 10 (16 January 2018)

M.J -v- S.O. [2018] IEHC 10 (16 January 2018)

The applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof that the children’s habitual residence had changed from Ireland to Poland during the relevant period. The evidence did not establish a joint intention to settle in Poland or sufficient integration there. Even if habitual residence had changed, the children’s clear and authentic objections to returning to Poland, supported by their best interests and fear of the applicant, justified the court’s exercise of discretion to refuse return.

Citation
[2018] IEHC 10
Parties
Applicant: M. J.; Respondent: S. O.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Abduction (hague Convention) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Reliefs sought refused
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Habitual Residence, Hague Convention, Parental Responsibility, Children's Objections, Return Orders
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Habitual Residence Hague Convention Parental Responsibility Children's Objections Return Orders

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. J.

Applicant

S. O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Abduction (hague Convention) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the children were habitually resident in Poland at the time of removal
  2. 2 Whether the removal was wrongful under Article 3 of the Hague Convention
  3. 3 Whether the children's objections to return should be determinative

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof that the children’s habitual residence had changed from Ireland to Poland during the relevant period. The evidence did not establish a joint intention to settle in Poland or sufficient integration there. Even if habitual residence had changed, the children’s clear and authentic objections to returning to Poland, supported by their best interests and fear of the applicant, justified the court’s exercise of discretion to refuse return.

Court Disposition

Reliefs sought refused

Orders

  • Application for return of children to Poland refused
  • No declaration of wrongful removal under Article 3 of the Hague Convention