U.A. v U.T.N. [2011] IESC 39 (13 October 2011)

U.A. v U.T.N. [2011] IESC 39 (13 October 2011)

The High Court was entitled to exercise its discretion under Article 13 of the Hague Convention to refuse the return of the children to New York, having found that the children objected to return, had attained sufficient maturity, and that their objections were authentic, cogent, and not the result of coaching. The High Court properly considered all relevant factors, including the policy of the Convention, the children's welfare, and the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's exercise of discretion and affirmed the refusal to return the children.

Citation
[2011] IESC 39
Parties
Applicant/appellant: A. U.; Respondent: T. N. U.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Child Abduction Appeal Under Hague Convention / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Hague Convention, Custody, Children's Views, Judicial Discretion
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Hague Convention Custody Children's Views Judicial Discretion

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. U.

Applicant/appellant

T. N. U.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Abduction Appeal Under Hague Convention / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court correctly exercised discretion under Article 13 of the Hague Convention to refuse return of children based on their objections and maturity
  2. 2 Whether the children's views were sufficiently mature and independent to be determinative
  3. 3 Whether the High Court erred in weighing the policy of the Hague Convention against the children's objections

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court was entitled to exercise its discretion under Article 13 of the Hague Convention to refuse the return of the children to New York, having found that the children objected to return, had attained sufficient maturity, and that their objections were authentic, cogent, and not the result of coaching. The High Court properly considered all relevant factors, including the policy of the Convention, the children's welfare, and the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's exercise of discretion and affirmed the refusal to return the children.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • Refusal to return the children to New York under Article 13 of the Hague Convention