J. McB. -v- L.E., [2010] IESC 48 (2010)

Docket Number:171/10
Party Name:J. McB., L.E.
Judge:Fennelly J.
 
FREE EXCERPT

SUPREME COURTAppeal No. 171/10

Denham J.

Fennelly J.

Macken J.

Finnegan J.

O’Donnell J.

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS ACT 1964

(AS AMENDED), IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD ABDUCTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CUSTODY ORDERS ACT 1991 (AS AMENDED)AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION DONE AT THE HAGUE ON THE 25TH OCTOBER 1980, IN THE MATTER OF COUNCIL REGULATION NO. 2201/2003(EC)

AND IN THE MATTER OF J. McB, E. McB. and J.C. McB., CHILDREN

BETWEEN:

J. McB.Applicant/AppellantAND

L.E.Respondent

Decision of the Supreme Court referring a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a Preliminary Ruling delivered by Mr. Justice Fennelly on the 30th day of July, 2010.

  1. This is an order for reference for preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The question relates to the interpretation of the notion of “rights of custody” within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27th November 2003 on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (hereinafter “Regulation No 2201/2003”) and in the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects Of International Child Abduction (hereinafter “the Hague Convention”).

  2. The Court requests the Court of Justice to deal with the case under the urgent procedure pursuant to Article 104b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. It is recognised in the 17th recital to Regulation No 2201/2003 that in cases of wrongful removal of a child, which is alleged in the present case, the return of the child should be obtained without delay.

  3. The appellant in the national proceedings is the father and the respondent is the mother of three children born to them between 2000 and 2007 while the parties cohabited in a non-marital relationship.

  4. It is agreed between the parties that Ireland was the country of habitual residence of the children, for the purpose of the Hague Convention, on 25th July 2009 on which date the respondent, without notice to the appellant, removed the children from Ireland to England.

  5. The issue in dispute is whether the appellant had “rights of custody” in respect of the children on the date of their removal from Ireland.

    Legal Proceedings

  6. On the 2nd November, 2009 the appellant caused to be issued in the High Court of Justice (Family Division) of England and Wales (hereinafter “the English Court”) an originating summons in which he applied to the English Court for an order for the return of the children to Ireland pursuant to the legislation of the United Kingdom giving effect to the Hague Convention and to Regulation No 2201/2003.

  7. The English Court (McFarlane J.), by order dated 20th November, 2009, requested that the appellant, pursuant to Article 15 of the Hague Convention, obtain from the High Court of Ireland a decision or other determination that the removal of the children from Ireland was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention.

  8. On 22nd December 2009, the appellant commenced proceedings in the High Court of Ireland by way of Family Law Special Summons seeking a declaration pursuant to the Irish legislation implementing the Hague Convention and to Article 15 of that Convention that the removal of the children from Ireland in July 2009 had been wrongful both within the meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention and of Article 2 of Regulation No 2201/2003. The appellant applied to the High Court in the same action for orders of guardianship and custody in respect of the children, which latter issues have not yet been determined by the Irish courts.

  9. The High Court heard the appellant’s application pursuant to the Hague Convention and to Regulation No 2201/2003. By a judgment delivered on 28th April 2010 that court (per MacMenamin J.) determined that the appellant had not enjoyed any rights of custody in respect of the children at the time of their removal from Ireland and that the removal had not, therefore, been wrongful within the meaning of the Hague Convention or Regulation No 2201/2003.

  10. The appellant has appealed to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court. Some of the arguments of the appellant concerning the interpretation of Regulation No 2201/2003 have caused this Court to make the present order for reference. Prior to considering those arguments, it is necessary to give an account of the facts insofar as they are relevant to the question whether the appellant enjoyed “rights of custody” at the date of removal of the children.

    Facts: the relationship between the parties

  11. The parties met in 1999 in England. The father, an Irish national, was then aged 24 years. The mother is English and was then 20 years of age. In the following years the parties lived in England, Australia, Northern Ireland and Ireland. They had three children: J, a son, was born in England on 21st December, 2000; E, a daughter, was born in Northern Ireland on 20th November 2002; J.C., a daughter was born in Northern Ireland on the 22nd July, 2007. The respondent had two children from an earlier relationship, one of whom (a boy born in 1998) lived with the parties and treated the appellant as his father but is not the subject of these proceedings.

  12. In November, 2008 the parties came to live in Ireland and found a home near to his family's original home. Until July 2009 they lived in that area. The children attended school locally.

  13. The High Court judge noted that the affidavits sworn by the parties contained a number of accusations and counter...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL