Q v Q (Approved) [2023] IEHC 183 (08 February 2023)

Q v Q (Approved) [2023] IEHC 183 (08 February 2023)

The children were habitually resident in South East Asia at the time of removal. The Respondent failed to establish, on clear and compelling evidence, that returning the children would expose them to a grave risk of harm or place them in an intolerable situation. The cumulative effect of the Applicant's controlling conduct, while concerning, does not meet the high threshold required under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention. The objections of one child do not justify refusal of return for all three children. The legal system of the requesting state is capable of mitigating risks, especially with undertakings from the Applicant.

Citation
[2023] IEHC 183
Parties
Applicant: Q.; Respondent: Q.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Child Abduction Under Hague Convention / Judgment on Application for Return of Children
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Hague Convention, Custody, Grave Risk Defence, Habitual Residence
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Hague Convention Custody Grave Risk Defence Habitual Residence

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Q.

Applicant

Q.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the removal of the children from South East Asia to Ireland was wrongful under the Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether the children were habitually resident in South East Asia at the time of removal
  3. 3 Whether there is a grave risk that returning the children would expose them to physical or psychological harm or place them in an intolerable situation

Ratio Decidendi

The children were habitually resident in South East Asia at the time of removal. The Respondent failed to establish, on clear and compelling evidence, that returning the children would expose them to a grave risk of harm or place them in an intolerable situation. The cumulative effect of the Applicant's controlling conduct, while concerning, does not meet the high threshold required under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention. The objections of one child do not justify refusal of return for all three children. The legal system of the requesting state is capable of mitigating risks, especially with undertakings from the Applicant.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Order for the return of the three children to South East Asia, subject to undertakings from the Applicant regarding the Respondent's security on return.