Case Law Search

The case concerned two boys born in 2010 and 2015. They were both subject to intermittent legal proceedings and social work involvement. Both were the subject of child protection plans at an early age under the category of “neglect”. In July 2020 a care order was made in favour of the local authority. The children lived with foster carers and had direct contact with their mother.

There was much instability in the children’s lives with three sets of care proceedings and having moved at different times between the care of his mother, his maternal grandmother, back to the care of his mother, to foster care, and to the maternal grandparents.

While living with their grandparents in Ireland the children’s school attendance dropped and there were concerns about some aspects of the grandparents’ use of discipline. 

The boys went to visit their mother in England and in August 2024 the mother wrongfully retained the children there. 

The grandparents, as the children’s special guardians, made an application for their return to Ireland under the 1980 Hague Convention. The mother contested this based on Article 13(1)(b) and the children’s objections to return.

In December 2024 an order was made for the return of the children to Ireland. 

The mother made a series of appeals and applications to set aside the return order but they were all refused. Many attempts were made to enforce the return order including an unsuccessful attempt to execute a collection order, and involved input from a range of professionals: social workers, the Police, CAFCASS and the Tipstaff. There were also unsuccessful attempts to establish regular indirect and direct contact between the boys and the maternal grandparents. 

The mother argued that the return order should be set aside as, due to the children’s strength of feeling, there was no realistic prospect of it being successfully implemented. 

Return order set aside.

Issues Relating to Return

The court had overseen extensive efforts to implement the return order. Since the return order was made, there had been thirteen court hearings with a further three orders made. The Court of Appeal had refused four applications for permission to appeal. Against this background the Judge was satisfied that there was no realistic prospect of the return order being implemented in the foreseeable future. This conclusion was a development which fundamentally changed the basis on which the return order was made.

The continuation of these proceedings would run contrary to that spirit of the 1980 Hague Convention where proceedings are intended to be summary in nature and swift in their disposal. It was also well recognised that the Convention itself should never become an instrument of harm.