The District Court allowed the Child and Family Agency (CFA) to make a request under Article 15 of Brussels II A Regulation (EC/22011/2003) inviting the courts of England and Wales to assume jurisdiction for proceedings concerning an infant born in Ireland.
Both parents had moved to the Irish jurisdiction to evade proposed action by social services in UK. They were neither objecting nor consenting to the transfer of the case under Article 15. The parents, who had struggled to settle in Ireland, were homeless. The District Court had previously decided it had jurisdiction based on the child’s birth and presence in Ireland.
The mother was a British national and the father, who was from a non-EU jurisdiction, had been granted refugee status in the UK under a different surname and birth certificate. Shortly after the child’s birth the CFA obtained an interim care order for the child, who was placed in short-term foster care.
Present in court were the social worker and the principal social worker, the GAL, both parents with their legal representatives, an advocate and an interpreter for the father whose first language was not English.
The case concerned two particular matters: the extension of an interim care order and an Article 15 application (case transfer to a court better placed to hear proceedings).
The Interim Care Order Extension
Social Worker Evidence
The social worker told the court that the grounds which warranted the interim care order continued to exist. The parents had raised a number of issues, which she had tried to address with the foster carer.
The parents had complained that white hair was found on the baby’s body. The foster carer had told the social worker that it was likely to be from the house pet. The hair could had been in the washing machine and subsequently turned up on the baby’s body. The infant had developed a skin rash and the parents were worried that it could be an allergy to animals. The foster carer had reassured the social worker that the house had been cleaned and that she would be more vigilant.
In addition, the parents had taken photographs of the baby’s travel bag, which seemed to have a lot of dirt. There was a vitamin D applicator that was left uncovered and the baby’s feeding bottles appeared to be dirty. The social worker said that the foster carer was not pleased that photos had been taken. Although she regularly sterilised the vitamin D applicator, she had agreed to get a new one. In relation to the feeding bottles, the foster carer had checked with the pharmacist who advised to sterilise them and use a different formula.
The social worker said that the parents wanted to take their baby for the vaccinations, which were due the following week. However, this was not possible as the parents were not registered with any GP. The mother was keen to at least be present while it was done but the social worker did not recommend it adding that “the foster carer could do that”.
Birth registration complications
The court heard that there were complications registering the birth of the child. At the maternity hospital the parents had registered themselves as a married couple. However, their marriage was a religious one and was not recognised in Ireland so legally they were deemed to be unmarried parents by the Registrar of births. The parents did not intend to mislead the hospital but, according to their religion, they were married. The social worker said that the parents would need to declare they were single parents in order to progress matters. In addition, the mother had changed her surname by deed poll to that of her husband and she did not have any photo identification.
The social worker told the court that the parents were in a very precarious situation and that she would be “happy to support” them. “As per tomorrow, they will not have any accommodation,” said the social worker adding that the parents would also need photo identification to access homeless services.
During cross-examination, counsel for the mother asked the social worker if she had seen the photographs taken by the parents of the room where they had access to their baby in the access centre. Accepting that the room was “very messy and quite dirty in one specific area,” the social worker said that she had forwarded the photographs to the access centre. Counsel for the mother asked whether the access centre was appropriate and highlighted the fact that the parents had no hot water available. The social worker answered that once the issues of dirtiness and untidiness were addressed it would be adequate.
“What about the dirt in the baby bag and the car seat? Have you seen the photos?” asked counsel for the mother, pointing out that the infant’s skin rash could be associated with it. The court heard that, in addition to the vitamin D applicator, there was also a loose soother in the baby bag, which was dirty. The social worker agreed that it was “a bit messy”. The foster carer had apologised and was willing to address these issues.
In relation to the birth registration, counsel for the mother asked how quickly the ongoing issues could be addressed. The court heard that the mother was required to have a Personal Public Service (PPS) number in order to register the birth of the child. She would also need a photo ID but this had proved difficult given that she had changed her surname by deed poll to that of her husband. In addition, the father had refugee status in the UK but under a different surname and birth certificate. The social worker replied that an appointment with the chief registrar had been arranged to try to progress matters. “Somebody needs to identify that the parents are the actual parents of the baby,” she added. It was acknowledged that the advocate had been very helpful supporting the parents to register the birth.
Counsel for the mother said that both parents had found access very stressful due to their homelessness and the difficulties registering the birth of their child. “Would you take steps to ensure that both parents are registered on the birth certificate?” asked counsel, stating that her client would be against registering only one parent.
The social worker said that it would be important to register the birth of the child as soon as possible and to proceed with the schedule of vaccinations. The other parent could be added to the birth certificate at a later stage. It was possible to register the birth of the child with one parent and subsequently re-register the birth of the child to include the other parent.
Counsel for the father added that the parents had consented to the interim care order on a non-prejudice basis and insisted that both parents wanted to be present during the vaccinations. The social worker accepted that the relationship between the parents and the foster carers was cordial. When asked about the existing access arrangements, the social worker confirmed that there was no intention to alter them.
Guardian ad litem evidence
The guardian ad litem (GAL) had visited the child and the parents and observed access to the child by the parents. She told the court that the parents, who were very attentive to their child, engaged very well and were keen to explain their situation.
The GAL, who had seen a couple of the photographs taken by the parents, said she was surprised as they were “out of context” and did not reflect “what it is in the home”. The issues raised by the parents were being addressed by the social worker and the foster carer. The GAL pointed out that the bigger context was that the baby was thriving in the foster care placement and she agreed with the extension of the interim care order. The foster carer was keen to get things right and had also started to take daily photographs to show.
Judge: “What about the dirt in the baby bag?”
GAL: “It looks like drink or a biscuit. The bag needs to be replaced.”
Noting that photographs were arriving on a regular basis, the judge said that the concerns of the parents were fair in circumstances where somebody else was looking after their baby. Given the evidence provided, the judge was satisfied that it was necessary and proportionate to extend the interim care order on consent.
The judge asked the CFA to procure a GP report regarding the baby’s skin rash, to replace the baby travel bag, to make every effort to facilitate the parents attending the GP with the social worker and the various outstanding issues to be dealt with.
Alongside the extension of the interim care order, the CFA brought an application to the District Court seeking the transfer of the care proceedings to the courts of England and Wales under Article 15 of Brussels II A Regulation (Council Regulation 2001/2003). The GAL supported the application and the parents did not oppose it.
The court heard that Article 15 allowed the courts of a member state to request the transfer of a case if they consider that the courts of another member state would be better placed to hear the case and where this is in the best interest of the child. The CFA argued that the most appropriate court to hear and determine the care proceedings in respect of the infant was within the jurisdiction of England and Wales.
The solicitor for the CFA referred to CFA v JD  IESC 56 where the Supreme Court considered the Article 15 process and referred a number of questions to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) for guidance. A number of practical consequences flowed from the CJEU ruling (CFA v JD C-428/15) including that it was the duty of the court which first dealt with a child care matter with international dimensions to consider the question of whether it was the court best placed to hear it. In the past a separate application in that regard would have been made to the High Court. However, given that there were ongoing District Court care proceedings in respect of the infant, this was not necessary.
In addition, the solicitor for the CFA outlined the appropriate interpretation of the concept of the “best interests of the child” as clarified by the CJEU. The court of another member state, with which the child had a particular connection, would be better placed to hear the case where the transfer provided added value to the examination of the case, taking into account the rules of procedure in place in the other member state. Moreover, in determining that a transfer was in the best interests of the child, the court had to be satisfied that the transfer would not be detrimental to the situation of the child.
Particular connection and proximity
The CFA said that the court would have to ascertain whether there was a particular connection with another member state and the degree and extent of the proximity arising from that connection. This proximity could be demonstrated by the existence of one or more of the general factors set out in Article 15(3).
The first two factors related to the habitual residence acquired by the child concerned, either before or after the court having jurisdiction had been seised. The third and fourth factors were the nationality of the child and the habitual residence of a holder of parental responsibility. The last factor was based on a relation of proximity that the child could have with the jurisdiction through any property of the child located in the other Member State.
The CFA solicitor said that the child was entitled to British citizenship by virtue of the mother, who was a British national. Therefore, according to Article 15.3 (c), there was a “particular connection” with that jurisdiction. This was despite the fact that the infant, who was born in Ireland, might also have been entitled to Irish citizenship. In addition, the CFA argued that the parents had no connections with the Irish jurisdiction other than the fact that their daughter was born in Ireland. The mother was a British national and the father, who was from a non-European jurisdiction, had been granted refugee status in the UK. Hence, all the connections between the child and the maternal family were in this other European jurisdiction.
The CFA solicitor told the judge that the court would have to determine whether the transfer of the case would provide genuine and specific value to the proceedings in relation to the child, compared to the possibility of the case remaining before the court. The court could take into account the rules of procedure in the other member state, such as those applicable to the taking of evidence. However, the court could not take into consideration the substantive law within such an assessment.
Noting that the majority of the evidence was in the UK and that the added value was very clear, the CFA solicitor said: “I am mindful that we would have to hear the evidence by video link.” According to the CFA, the Courts of England and Wales were better placed to have jurisdiction of the case because all the professional witnesses necessary to determine the substantial issues were resident there and were not compellable in Ireland should they decline to give evidence. In addition, documentary evidence relating to the mental health histories of the parents, their capacity to parent the child and other reports were located in that jurisdiction.
Finally, the solicitor for the CFA pointed out that for the transfer to be in the best interests of the child, the court had to be satisfied that it would not be detrimental to the situation of the child concerned. The desirability of the case being determined by the court best able to do so could be overridden by some negative effect of the transfer on the circumstances or situation of the child. Having assessed the possible negative effects, the court could decide to request the transfer of part of the case, as opposed to the entire case. This would be particularly appropriate in circumstances where the factor of proximity with another member state related not to the child directly, but to one of the holders of parental responsibility.
The CFA submitted that it was in the baby’s best interests for a request to be made under Article 15. Solicitor for the CFA pointed out that in CFA v G & Ors Number 4  IEDC 22, at paragraph 35, the mechanism in respect of the child’s best interests was described as a “double lock”. The court receiving the application for transfer would also have to consider whether assuming jurisdiction would be in the best interest of the child. Therefore it would be open to the court receiving the request to refuse it if satisfied that the transfer would not be in the child’s best interests.
Evidence from the principal social worker
The principal social worker said he was satisfied that the court of England and Wales were best placed to hear proceedings in respect of the infant. It was in the best interests of the child given his/her age and the information that was held in the UK.
In addition, the infant had no relations in Ireland beside his/her parents and the foster carers. The principal social worker explained that the infant, who was in short term foster care placement, would have to move at some stage. “In the UK there is a possibility of exploring caring options with other family members,” he added. The court heard that the infant should not move to another placement in advance of the transfer, which should happen “sooner rather than later”.
The principal social worker acknowledged that the infant was very attached to his/her parents and that they had formed “an appropriate bond”.
Evidence from the guardian ad litem
Supporting the application, the GAL said that it was in the best interests of the child that the transfer took place as soon as possible given that the infant was at the “bonding stage of the development”. The court heard that the maternal family was in England and all of the evidential records were available there. “I think the child is entitled to the best evidence,” said the GAL adding that the child’s bond with the parents was clear and that both parents were placing the best interests of their child at the fore. The parents, who were not objecting to the application, had struggled with everything since they arrived in Ireland and were in a very difficult position. The GAL said that the parents “would move on with the child and continue on with the access in the UK.”
Noting that the parents were not opposing the application, the judge was satisfied on the facts and submissions that the transfer of the care proceedings added genuine and specific value and was in the best interests of the child. The judge stayed the proceedings pending the determination of the request inviting the Courts of England and Wales to assume jurisdiction of the case.
Amid concerns that the EU Council Regulation could become inoperative following the approaching withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, the judge asked the CFA to prioritise matters and to make the request as expeditiously as possible via the Central Authority. In addition, the court granted an order to lift the in camera rule to allow the CFA to share information with the relevant UK counterparts. The judge asked the CFA to progress matters in the intervening period to address issues identified by the parents during access, to ensure resources for the parents and to register the birth of the child.
The solicitor for the CFA said that according to Article 15(5) the court of another member state may accept jurisdiction within six weeks, in which case the court first seised shall decline jurisdiction. Otherwise, the district court would continue to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with article 8 to 14 of the regulation. The courts should cooperate directly or through the relevant central authorities pursuant to Article 53 (member state’s designation of central authority/s to assist with the application of the regulation).
Later, difficulties registering the birth of infant in care continued due to parents’ inability to provide appropriate ID
A few weeks later the CFA applied for an extension of the interim care order on consent. The parents were again present in court and legally represented, with an advocate and translator.
As the GAL was not present, the judge asked the parties whether there were any objections to continuing the proceedings in her absence. Although there were no objections, the judge asked counsel for the GAL to explain to her client that “she should dispatch herself to the court”. Counsel for the GAL explained that another judge “wanted to talk to her”.
The social worker testified that the concerns which warranted the interim care order continue to exist. The court heard that the travel bag and the car seat had been replaced. The parents continued to be concerned about the infant’s skin rash, which they believed could be caused by an allergy to animals. The social worker said that the baby had been taken into hospital due to vomiting, pain and distress following access. The doctor diagnosed a viral gastritis but had no concerns regarding the skin rash at that point.
The foster carer had been treating the skin rush with the appropriate medicine. As the condition worsened, parents expressed concerns during access and the infant was taken to the GP. In relation to the possibility of an allergy to animals, the social worker said that the foster carer had been more vigilant to make sure that the baby did not get in contact with hair from the house pet, however, she was unsure where the hair was coming from. It was agreed that the baby should have been taken to the doctor earlier.
The social worker said that the infant was teething and “doing well overall”. At times the father would become distressed during access and therefore the baby would become stressed too. The mother continued to breastfeed the baby on a daily basis. Both parents got nearly daily reports about their child. Access took place in a different location after the parents raised the issue that the former centre was not suitable.
The court heard that the difficulties registering the birth of the child continued as the parents were unable to provide adequate photo ID to obtain a Personal Public Service (PPS) number. The mother was not in touch with anybody who could assist her in the UK. The social worker had contacted the superintendent in the registrar’s office and the relevant embassy to try to assist.
During cross-examination, counsel for the mother said that her client continued to have concerns about the cleanliness of the foster placement. “Hairs were found in the neck of the baby yesterday,” she added. The parents were concerned that contact with the house pet was causing the child’s skin rash. The social worker responded that she was not sure where the hair was coming from and that it could be the child grabbing his/her own hair. “One way to address it is gloves,” said the social worker adding that she would discuss it with the foster carer. The parents were also concerned that the new travel bag was not big enough to hold a week’s supply for the access visits.
When asked about the possibility of the mother obtaining a PPS number without photo ID, the social worker said that the department of social protection had confirmed it would not be possible. However, the embassy had indicated that the mother’s passport would be fast-tracked.
CFA solicitor: “A social worker can only do so much.”
Counsel for the mother: “How could matters be advanced if she does not have the documents?”
Social Worker: “I need to speak to more people.”
Judge: “People frequently have passports stolen and it is normal to go to the embassy to sort it out.”
Counsel for the mother asked who would attend a meeting that was to take place with the GAL to review access and the foster placement. The social worker said that the GAL, the foster carer and the social workers would attend. “In the absence of parents?” asked the judge. “Nothing has been set out in stone,” answered the social worker.
Counsel for the mother explained that the parents had a number of concerns that led them to consider returning to the UK. However, if those concerns were addressed the situation would be different. “I was informed that they wanted to go back to the UK at the time,” said the social worker. “This is still open to consideration,” clarified counsel for the mother.
Counsel for the father pointed out that the social worker’s report did not state that the baby had been in distress during the recent hospital visit, as revealed in court. The judge allowed a five-minute adjournment for counsel to take instructions following this disclosure.
After the adjournment, counsel for the father put it to the social worker that during access that day the parents had become concerned and it was only then that the baby was taken to hospital. The social worker said that access started at 10.30 that morning. The baby was in hospital from 2 pm to 7 pm.
Counsel for the father: “The father insisted that it was an emergency and that the baby should be taken to the hospital. And he was right?”
Social worker: “Yes”.
The court heard that the baby needed an appointment with the GP a few days later when the skin rash worsened but this was not done in a timely fashion. “Was there reluctance from the foster carer to bring the baby to the GP?” counsel for the father asked. “No, the foster carers are ready to bring the child if required,” said the social worker. Counsel for the father told the court that the parents had requested a report from the GP visit because they were concerned that the unexplained multiple hairs on the baby and baby clothes were causing the skin rash.
Counsel for the father: “When did you last visit the foster care home?”
Social worker: “I haven’t. The foster care link social worker would do so.”
Counsel for the father: “You are the allocated social worker and you have not visited the home?”
Social worker: “No. The foster care social worker would do so.”
The judge offered a brief adjournment when the father broke into tears but his counsel confirmed that they could proceed.
Counsel for the father said that her client had travelled from agency to agency trying to obtain the PPS number because without it the parents were not entitled to any benefits in the State. He had procured a stamped copy of his birth certificate and identification in the relevant embassy where he had handed in his old passport.
The social worker acknowledged that the father had made very strong efforts to address the situation and had travelled on several occasions to the registry office. When counsel for the father asked if there was any agency that could assist with the proof of identity even on an interim basis, the judge said: “She is a social worker. She has limited power.”
The court heard that access agreements had been distributed to the parents stating that if rules were broken there would be consequences. The social worker admitted that the rules had not been broken and that the father would remove himself when he became frustrated to smoke a cigarette. Counsel for the father asked, if the rules had not been broken, why the social worker’s report had envisaged that access would be reduced. Solicitor for the CFA argued that there was no application before the court in relation to that matter.
Counsel for the father said that it was only fair that his client would become upset and voiced his concerns given the course of events. The social worker replied that the complaint was in the hands of the principal worker and it would be followed according to protocols. Acknowledging the support that the advocate from the community partnership had provided, counsel for the father asked the social worker: “Have you had a meeting to explore cultural sensitivities and the reasons why my client is becoming frustrated and agitated? Rather than jumping to reduce access, would you consider having a meeting to address any concerns in the cultural context?” “I will consult [about] it with my team leader” answered the social worker.
The GAL, who arrived during the hearing, testified that she supported the application made by the CFA. The GAL said that skin rash “can get bad very quickly” and that there were some outstanding questions that could be clarified by the GP’s medical report. The GAL had visited the foster care house in two occasions, one arranged and one improvised. “It was pristine clean,” said the GAL adding that the foster carer was upset and emotional.
During the cross-examination, the GAL agreed that the parents should attend any meetings to foster better relationships and that no changes in access would be recommended before the statutory review. When the judge asked if the GP’s report would be sufficient to clarify the situation, the GAL pointed out that the GP, who was not “over concerned” about the skin rash, recommended the same treatment that the foster carer was providing. While an allergy was a possibility, the child was very young to diagnose.
Given the evidence presented and that both parents had consented, the judge granted the extension of the interim care order for four weeks. The judge directed the CFA to procure a medical report from the GP addressing all the issues outlined. Solicitor for the CFA told the court that feedback regarding whether the courts of England and Wales would assume jurisdiction was expected soon.
English High Court accepts jurisdiction of care proceedings in respect of an infant
A few weeks later, the solicitor for the CFA told the court that the courts of England and Wales had accepted jurisdiction of the care proceedings and had invited the District court to transfer all the files. The CFA had applied for a section 47 order to release all the reports to the delegated local council.
The father appeared agitated with the interpreter who told the court that he was not comfortable with eye contact from the court registrar. “The registrar will look at the computer screen,” the judge reassured him.
The parents, who were now not consenting to the transfer, had expressed concerns about the transfer of the proceedings at that juncture. “I understand your objections but this court has been asked to follow through,” said the judge, asking counsel for the parents whether applications for legal aid had been transmitted to ensure that the parents were fully represented in the UK courts.
Counsel for the father said that his client, who had been granted refugee status, was unable to obtain legal aid in the UK. The court heard that a number of organisations working on pro-bono basis had offered information to him but he had declined to take it. Counsel for the mother said her client was given a list of solicitors who could be contacted but she would further advise her.
The solicitor for the CFA said that the birth of the child had not been registered due to the ongoing difficulties of the parents to provide identification. The CFA sought an order under section 47 to release a letter to the superintendent in the Registry Office giving the background of the case and the existing court orders for the transfer. It was hoped that this information would assist in progressing matters related to the birth registration. The GAL supported the application to formulate the letter to assist with the birth registration. Both parents were very anxious that their child’s birth would be registered in Ireland. Counsel for the father said that her client did not want his daughter to move to the UK.
The judge made an order to lift the in camera rule for the purposes of the transfer of the proceedings and to facilitate the registration of the baby’s birth. “It is important that you enable and facilitate applications for legal aid under EU regulations to ensure that the parents obtain legal representation in UK,” the judge added. The father put his hands up and looked agitated.
Judge: “I believe your client wishes to express his views to counsel?”
Counsel for the father: “It is not a matter for the court. It can be assisted outside of court. Thank you.”
A few days later
The CFA sought an order under Article 56 (placement of a child in another member state) to facilitate the transfer of the care proceedings in respect of the infant to the courts of England and Wales. In addition, the CFA sought the extension of the existing interim care order (ICO) to ensure the safety of the child in the meantime. The local county council in the UK had identified a suitable placement.
The mother was present with her legal representative but the father was absent. The court heard that the parents did not have an address but they had been informed of the applications. Objecting to the notice of the court proceedings, counsel for the mother said that the CFA was aware that the parents were in homeless accommodation and therefore alternative arrangements should have been considered.
Counsel for the mother said that his client needed more time to consider the matter. Counsel for the father had no instructions. It appeared that the father was in court that morning but left subsequently. The father had previously released his legal team but they were asked to remain in case he would change his mind.
The CFA solicitor told the court that the parents had been aware that “this was coming down the line”. Supporting the applications, counsel for the GAL pointed out that the court should consider whether there was any prejudice to the parties by way of late service.
When the judge asked counsel what the prejudice was, counsel for the mother said: “We are not prejudiced in this matter, but it stands that my client would have preferred time to consider the matter. We object on the basis of time.”
Solicitor for the CFA said that the father had disengaged from everybody that week so a decision was made to resort to personal service by text message to a phone he had been using. A representative from the community partnership had phoned him to discuss the applications with him.
The representative from the community partnership testified that she had got a missed call from the father so she called him back to discuss the situation. She said that the father was very upset when they talked so she was not sure exactly what his understanding of the situation was. The community partnership representative understood that the father thought the extension of the interim care order would take place and that the transfer could happen any time.
Solicitor for the CFA showed the judge a copy of the text that was sent to the father. The court checked that it was the same mobile number the representative from the community partnership had used to get in touch with him. The judge was satisfied that, in the circumstances, the father had been served with notice of the proceedings and that he had withdrawn instructions from his solicitor. The court hearing proceeded.
The social worker was satisfied that the circumstances that warranted the interim care order had not changed. The social worker told the court that the father had become more difficult and unpredictable in the last couple of weeks, which was evident from attendances in court. It was not in the best interests of the child for him to be present during access particularly for safety reasons. The social worker had asked him not to attend visits until it could be arranged for a member of An Gardai Síochána to be present. She had also suggested that he would get professional mental health support, which he denied he needed. The court heard that the mother had continued the access and that the current foster placement was meeting the infant’s needs.
Counsel for the mother asked the social worker whether the transfer would take place even though the child’s birth had not been registered. The social worker said that in an ideal situation the child’s birth would be registered in Ireland so that in the future the child would be entitled to citizenship. “I am satisfied that [the child] could travel without the birth been registered,” added the social worker.
The mother, who testified for the first time, told the court that her baby would die because her family were racists. “As soon as they find out, the three of us will die,” she said, adding that she had made a statement to the Gardaí but she was told they could not do anything because she was not in the UK. The mother told the court that she wished to care for her baby. “There is a mechanism to appeal an article 15 but this court has no jurisdiction to make any changes,” said the judge.
The mother went on to explain that the father had not seen the text message from the CFA regarding the court hearing because his mobile had gone off early that afternoon. Her voice was shaking. She added that if her child’s birth was not registered, she was not entitled to a PPS number or anything.
Counsel for the mother: “Is there any other comment that you would like to make?”
Mother: “The transfer. It is not in [the child’s] best interest to be transferred to the UK. I ask the judge to protect [the child].”
The GAL, who supported the application, told the judge that the child was doing well and that she supported the application. Solicitor for the CFA told the court that a medical report from the child’s GP had been requested but it had not been done because the GP had been on holidays.
On the evidence given, the judge was satisfied that there was reasonable cause to believe that it was necessary for the child’s welfare to extend the ICO and, in the circumstances, it was in the best interests of the child to grant the section 47 to facilitate the transfer to the UK. The judge asked counsel for the father to remain in record until the business of the court would conclude in case there was an appeal.
Subsequently, the child’s birth was registered in Ireland with the mother’s surname. The mother had changed her surname by deed poll to that of her child’s father. The child travelled to the UK with a social worker. The CFA acknowledged that staff at the civil registration office had been very helpful. The CFA had lost contact with the parents and their whereabouts were unknown.
Brussels IIA Regulations
A.A.A.S. -v-S.A.S & anor  IEDC 2
CFA v JD  IESC 56
CFA v G & Ors Number 4  IEDC 22