L.D. v N.D.(1)
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Jordan |
| Judgment Date | 02 April 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] IEHC 268 |
| Date | 02 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | [2019/24 CAF] |
| Court | High Court |
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIAN OF INFANTS ACT, 1964 (AS AMENDED)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW (MAINTENANCE OF SPOUSES AND CHILDREN) ACT, 1976
AND
IN THE MATTER OF R.D. (A MINOR)
[2020] IEHC 268
Jordan J.
[2019/24 CAF]
THE HIGH COURT
FAMILY LAW
Relocation – Welfare – Access – Applicant seeking to be allowed to relocate to reside in the United Kingdom along with the child of her marriage with the respondent – Whether it was in the best interests of the welfare of the child to allow her mother to relocate with her to the United Kingdom
Facts: The applicant applied to be allowed to relocate to reside in the United Kingdom, her place of origin, along with her daughter, the child of her marriage with the respondent. The application to relocate proceeded on the basis that the relocation would be to the Manchester/Greater Manchester area and in particular to the Sale area where the parents of the applicant resided. The matter came before the High Court by way of an appeal from the Circuit Court judgment and order of Judge Ryan of the 28th of March 2019. The notice of appeal filed on the 2nd of April 2019 by the appellant was an appeal against the whole of the judgment and order of the Circuit Family Court. There were judicial separation proceedings pending in the Circuit Court which were instituted by the appellant in October 2017.
Held by Jordan J that, in all of the circumstances, it was in the best interests of the welfare of the child to allow her mother to relocate with her to Manchester but on the basis that a generous and structured access regime be put in place in order to allow the continuation and nurturing of the essential and important relationship which the child had with her father. In arriving at this decision, the Court was conscious of the fact that it was allowing the appeal against the decision of the Circuit Court Judge. In that regard, the Court had the benefit of the evidence of Dr. Byrne-Lynch which was not available to the Circuit Court Judge and it also had the benefit of the passage of the twelve month period since the Circuit Court decision.
Jordan J held that the appeal would be allowed.
Appeal allowed.
These proceedings concern an application by the applicant to be allowed to relocate to reside in the United Kingdom, her place of origin, along with her daughter R, the child of her marriage with the respondent. The application to relocate has proceeded on the basis that the relocation will be to the Manchester/Greater Manchester area (referred to generally as Manchester below) and in particular to the Sale area where the parents of the applicant reside. For ease of reference the parties shall be referred to throughout this judgment as the appellant, the respondent and R. – save where the context requires otherwise. The matter comes before the court by way of an appeal from the Circuit Court judgment and order of Her Honour Judge Ryan of the 28th of March 2019. The notice of appeal filed on the 2nd of April 2019 by the appellant is an appeal against the whole of the judgment and order of the Circuit Family Court. There are Judicial Separation proceedings pending in the Circuit Court which were instituted by the appellant in October 2017.
The appellant mother is thirty five years of age and comes from a family of three children. She has two sisters. The eldest of whom S., is thirty nine years of age. The second sister R., is thirty eight years of age. S lives in Greater Manchester with her spouse and is a regular visitor into the family home. R. is married, and lives with her husband, very close to the family home. Together the latter couple have one child, M., who is two years of age. R. is pregnant with their second child who is due to arrive later this year. Both M and the child R. are close and get on very well together.
The appellant's parents are both now approaching seventy years of age and are retired from their careers in the IT and teaching sectors. They are both involved in the care of M., her sister R.'s daughter.
The family resided first in S until the appellant was around eleven years of age. They then moved to B, Sale, outside Manchester. This move was precipitated by her and her sister's attendance at the L School in Altrincham. The appellant lived there until she was eighteen years of age.
The appellant then continued her education at C University where she studied Spanish for four years. Part of this course of study included an obligatory year spent abroad in Spain. Following this, she lived with her parents again for approximately one year. Afterwards the appellant began travelling around the world with her then boyfriend. When they returned from travelling both the appellant and her then boyfriend moved into a flat together in the Greater Manchester area. Following the breakup of that relationship in October, 2010 the appellant went to reside with two friends in a house share, close to where she worked.
The respondent is thirty eight years of age. He is a native of Dublin. He now works as a Chartered Accountant in a large accountancy firm in which his father worked before him. It is clear from the evidence that he has a successful career and is ambitious for the future. It is also clear from the evidence that he works extremely hard and that his work frequently involves long hours in the office – although it does appear that he has the facility of remote working as the need arises.
The respondent's parents live in South Dublin. He is the youngest in a family of four children, three boys and one girl. His eldest brother is separated and lives away. Another brother RD lives in D and is married with three children, two boys and one girl. The girl is close in age to R. His sister G. is married with two children, a boy and a girl. The latter family lives in South Dublin.
The appellant was educated at XY, a well-regarded Dublin school, following his primary education. According to the expert reports and the evidence in court, the appellant's childhood was quite unremarkable and was a happy and contended one. After his Leaving Certificate exams, he attended Portobello College, qualifying in Business and thereafter following his father into the family accountancy firm. This firm subsequently merged with another relatively recently and became a much larger firm. The appellant qualified as a Chartered Accountant in 2008 and later as a Tax Consultant in 2013.
Prior to his relationship with the appellant the respondent was involved in three previous relationships. The first of which was when he was seventeen years of age and which lasted two years. The second of which was when he was in college and lasted for eighteen months. The last of the relationships before he met the appellant was for a duration of approximately three and a half years during which time he lived with his then girlfriend for the last two years of the relationship.
The appellant described in her evidence and to the experts a close family bond with her parents and siblings. Having enjoyed full careers, her parents retired and are enjoying their retirement and family life - while coping with the difficulties addressed in these proceedings. Her mother did suffer from a significant illness in recent years and this was ultimately diagnosed as an autoimmune condition. Her mother is fine now but does attend follow-up assessments at the hospital. Her father has had hyper-tension from a young age and this is managed with medication. The appellant described him as really fit and healthy, involved in cycling and playing table-tennis. It is the position that he suffers from some eyesight difficulties which prevent him from driving. Overall, the maternal grandparents clearly enjoy full and active lives. They have no connection to Ireland apart from the appellant and R.
The respondent's parents are now aged seventy-four or thereabouts. Both have suffered from ill-health in recent years. The paternal grandfather has survived cancer and is suffering from Parkinson's disease. Despite these health issues he does attend the offices of the accountancy firm in what can probably best be described as a semi-retired fashion. The paternal grandmother suffers from a neurological condition which is a significant health condition.
The appellant came to Ireland to be with the respondent. They had met on a skiing holiday in Austria in February, 2011 and fell in love. The relationship moved quickly. After returning from Austria the appellant and the respondent maintained their relationship by travelling between Dublin and Manchester to see each other until the appellant moved over in October, 2011. Prior to her move the appellant was still living in the house share in Altrincham and she was working for a forestry company, UPM. This was all in the general vicinity of where her family lived in the Greater Manchester area.
The couple decided that the appellant would move to Dublin. The respondent had his career and house in Dublin, and he hoped to take over the partnership business in which his father was involved. So the appellant's move was sensible. On moving to Ireland she moved in with the respondent. She found work quite easily through an agency – although the work was somewhat uncertain and casual in nature.
After six weeks or so doing agency type work the appellant secured a temporary position with a company in Cherrywood. This role in a pharmaceutical company entailed PA/office administration type work as part of the team involved in the recalling of items. The appellant found this work, which was computer based, to be very monotonous. She did not enjoy the job but was glad to have employment. The appellant started to look for a new job in May of the following year and secured one closer to where she lived....
To continue reading
Request your trial