A.A.A.S. -v-S.A.S & anor

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: http://justis.com/court/2844
• Judge: Horgan P.
• Judgment Date: 18 January 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IEDC 2
• Case Outcome: Approved
• Docket Number: Z1957 2018
• Date: 27 November 2003

Record No. Z1957/2018

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

[REDACTED] DISTRICT

CHILD CARE ACT 1991 - SECTION 17(1)

APPLICATION FOR AN INTERIM CARE ORDER

In the Matter of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition

and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility (the "regulation").

IN THE MATTER OF AAAS, A CHILD

Child and Family Agency

Applicant

-and-

SAS

First Named Respondents

-and-

MSAS otherwise known as AAS

Second Named Respondent

Application to Extend Interim Care Order and Request to Transfer this Case for Hearing to a Court Better Placed to Hear the Case Under Article

15 Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 Of 27 November 2003 Concerning Jurisdiction and The Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in

Matrimonial Matters and Matters of Parental Responsibility (The "Regulation").

1. This case concerns a baby who is approximately 10 weeks old having been born in November 2019. The Court made an Interim Care Order

under Section 17(1) of the Child Care Act, 1991 on 3 December 2018 and granted an Extension of the Interim Care Order on 21 December 2018

in accordance with Section 17(2) of the 1991 Act. The Court appointed a Guardian Ad Litem to represent the best interests of the child.

2. Having assessed the Court’s Jurisdiction under Article 17 of the Regulation, and having considered the submissions by counsel for the mother and

father and the solicitor for the Agency and taking into account the relevant Articles in the Regulation as well as case of Re A (Area of Freedom,

Security and Justice) Case C-523/07, [2009] 2 FLR and Mercredi v Chaffe Case C-498/10, [2011] 1 FLR 1293 and Case C 393/18 PPU UD v

XB on 3 December 2018 the Court found that it was properly seized of this case pursuant to Article 13 of the Regulation based on the child’s

presence and birth in this jurisdiction.

3. Article 15 of the Regulation provides:

‘1. By way of exception, the courts of a Member State having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter may, if they consider that a court of

another Member State, with which the child has a particular connection, would be better placed to hear the case, or a specific part thereof, and

where this is in the best interests of the child:

(a) stay the case or the part thereof in question and invite the parties to introduce a request before the court of that other Member State in

accordance with paragraph 4; or

(b) request a court of another Member State to assume jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 5.

2. Paragraph 1 shall apply:

(a) upon application from a party; or