A district court judge granted an extension of an interim care order for a child, pending an urgent hearing on habitual residency under article 11 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The guardian ad litem (GAL) was represented, and the lawyer for the child’s parents was on record conditionally on receipt of legal aid approval.
Counsel for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) told the court that the case involved an habitual residency dispute. The interim care order had been granted by another district court judge, and directions on jurisdiction were sought. No further steps could occur until habitual residency was determined and an urgent hearing date was being requested by the CFA. The CFA and GAL said the child’s habitual residency was in the United Kingdom (UK). The parents opposed this and maintained their residency had changed.
Evidence of the social worker
The social worker told the court he had prepared a report and provided a copy to the judge. He said the health and welfare of the child would likely be impaired without the order being granted. He told the court that the children’s services for a London borough had referred the case to the CFA due to serious concerns regarding the health and welfare of the child.
The social worker stated that it was a high-risk child abduction matter, with recovery order in place for the child by the UK authorities.
The court heard that concerns for the child had arisen in the UK due to alleged domestic abuse. The child’s mother was found with self-inflicted forearm lacerations and a black eye from an assault, perpetrated by the child’s father. In addition, there were alcohol abuse concerns for the child’s mother, when wine had been found in the child’s cot, and she had presented as intoxicated to social workers.
After the father’s arrest, the child and her mother had stayed with maternal grandparents, and thereafter moved to supported accommodation. The child’s father entered the accommodation and told the support worker to leave. When the UK authorities became aware of this, they obtained a recovery order for the child, but it was understood that the they had fled to Ireland.
The social worker stated that the child was removed from the care of her parents by An Garda Síochána under section 12 of the Child Care Act 1991, after being located in a rural part of the county. Subsequently, applications for an emergency care order, under section 13 of the Childcare Act 1991, and an interim care order, under section 17 of the Childcare Act 1991, had been granted to the CFA.
The child was now in emergency foster care, and doing well but with mild bronchitis, and being treated with steroids. The social worker stated that the child was alert and well-cared for. He said the habitual residency of the child was in the UK and the child’s best interests required her returning there.
The social worker had received a call from the father after her emergency placement. He told the social worker that they wanted to return to the UK as they were sleeping rough and were hungry and had no other options. The child’s father had approached the county council homelessness service, saying he was hungry and could not get food. The social worker stated that when he attempted a home visit to an address provided to him by the child’s parents, he got no response. The child’s mother had returned the social worker’s call thirty minutes after the visit, stating they were at the hospital and the home visit had “slipped their mind”.
The lawyer for the child’s parents asked whether his clients had told the social worker they intended to stay in Ireland. The social worker said they had consistently maintained this, except in a recent call when the child’s father had expressed a wish to return to the UK. The social worker could not confirm if criminal charges had been brought against the father by UK authorities.
The GAL’s lawyer asked if care concerns persisted and the social worker confirmed they did. He said the GAL shared the view that habitual residency was in the UK and no further planning for the child’s care could proceed until this issue was determined.
Evidence of the GAL
The GAL’s concerns stemmed from the “extremity of domestic abuse”, the father’s extensive criminal history, the mother’s vulnerability and substance misuse. She supported the extension of the interim care order and said that the child’s habitual residency was in the UK. She said the parents appeared to evade UK social services, where a child protection plan was in place. The child’s health, welfare, and development would be impaired if returned to the parents, according to the GAL.
The GAL stated that nothing could progress until habitual residency was determined under article 11 of the Hague Convention. She believed that delay would harm the child, as a child protection plan was needed, as well as a paediatric assessment for the chid and collaboration with UK services. She stated that the child was a beautiful, advanced, alert, pleasant and happy baby.
Under questioning from counsel for the CFA, the GAL said the maternal grandmother had primarily cared for the child between the abuse and abduction. She said the habitual residency hearing should occur within four to six weeks, or sooner.
Under questioning from the lawyer for the child’s parents, the GAL said the parents presented as a united couple since she met them. She stated that the father had previously been married and this was not accepted by the maternal family. The maternal grandfather had allegedly chased the father with a machete, and, in a separate incident, the mother’s brother and father had vandalised the family home.
The lawyer for the child’s parents stated that that they did not consent to the extension, they wanted the child back and sought family reunification. Counsel for the CFA sought the extension of the interim care order and the lifting of the in camera rule to share reports and orders with UK authorities.
Decision
The judge stated that the threshold had been met and extended the interim care order. The habitual residency hearing was set for the following month, with directions for affidavit exchange. He lifted the in camera rule to allow sharing of CFA and GAL reports, court applications, and orders with London borough children’s services.