M. v M. (Approved) [2023] IEHC 182 (20 February 2023)

Pawel was habitually resident in Poland at the relevant time, and although he objects to return, his objections are not sufficiently strong to outweigh the objectives of the Hague Convention and Brussels II b Regulation; therefore, the child must be returned to Poland.

Citation: [2023] IEHC 182
Parties: Applicant: M.; Respondent: M.
Jurisdiction: Ireland
Judgment Date: 20 February 2023
Procedural Posture: Child Abduction Under Hague Convention / Judgment on Application for Return of Child
Outcome: Application granted; order for return of child to Poland.
Legal Topics: Child Abduction, Habitual Residence, Views of the Child, Hague Convention, Brussels II B Regulation

Family Law International Law Child Abduction Habitual Residence Views of the Child Hague Convention Brussels II B Regulation

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 6 Party arguments 2

Parties

Applicant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Abduction Under Hague Convention / Judgment on Application for Return of Child

Legal Issues

1 Whether the child was habitually resident in Poland at the time of alleged wrongful retention
2 Whether the child's objection to return is sufficient to refuse return under the Hague Convention

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application granted; order for return of child to Poland.

Orders

Pawel must be returned to Poland where an application can be made to the relevant court if his parents cannot agree on his immediate future residence.