Family - The Child Abduction and Enforcement of Custody Orders Act, 1991 - The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Hague Convention”) - Council Regulation 2201/2003 - Custody rights - Wrongful removal - Place of habitual residence 

Facts: The applicant/father sought an order for the return of the named child to the jurisdiction of Poland. The applicant contended that he had brought the respondent/mother along with the said child on a two-week holiday in Ireland and the respondent failed to return the child to Poland. The respondent did not object to the fact that the applicant had custody rights over that child. The respondent alleged that the applicant had made her move to Ireland in search for better employment and thus consented to the removal of the child. The respondent also raised contentions concerning violent behaviour of the applicant, which was accepted by the applicant. 
Held: Ms. Justice Bronagh O’Hanlon granted an order for the return of the child. The Court noted that it had mandatory obligation to return the child to the place where the child was habitually resident under art. 12 of the Hague Convention except in cases where it was established that the life of the child would be at risk on account of great harm as provided under art. 13 of the Hague Convention. The Court found that since the proceedings concerning child care and custody were already ongoing in the courts in Poland, including the action taken on the applicant for showing violent behaviour towards the respondent, it was appropriate that all other issues, too, would be dealt in Poland. The Court held that as per Council reg. (EC) 2201/2003, it was the courts in Poland who had the jurisdiction to deal with any dispute concerning child care as the child was habitually resident in that place. The Court noted down the views of the child who did not object to his return to Poland and stated that he was happy in both in Ireland and Poland. 
N (M) v N (A)
20/12/2016 No. 2016 30 HLC  [2016] IEHC 739