A.X. v R.X.

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Ms. Justice Nuala Jackson
• Judgment Date: 21 July 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 432
• Docket Number: Record No. 2025 1 HLC

In the Matter of the Child Abduction and Enforcement of Custody Orders Act, 1991

And in the Matter of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

And in the Matter of Council Regulation 2019/111/EC and in the Matter of the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court

And in the Matter of M.X. (A Minor)

Between:

A.X.

Applicant

and

R.X.

Respondent

[2025] IEHC 432

Record No. 2025 1 HLC

REDACTED

THE HIGH COURT

FAMILY LAW

Wrongful removal – Habitual residence – Grave risk – Applicant seeking seeking the return of a minor to Poland pursuant to the provisions of the Hague Convention – Whether there was evidence of conduct meeting the standard required to establish a grave risk of psychological or physical harm to the child in the event of a return

Facts: The applicant issued proceedings on 20 January 2025 seeking the return of a minor to Poland pursuant to the provisions of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Convention) and Council Regulation 2019/1111/EC. The case was unusual insofar as it was the second set of proceedings seeking such relief, the first such having commenced in July 2023 (the first proceedings) and having concluded by orders of the High Court (Gearty J) on 30 May 2024, 11 June 2024 and 9 July 2024, the first of which orders recite “the parties by said Counsel informing the Court that this action has settled and that the minor named in the title hereof will be voluntarily returned to the jurisdiction of Poland in or around the first week of July 2024”. That first order continued on to note the undertaking of the applicant father “not to pursue a prosecution in criminal proceedings against the Respondent in the Jurisdiction of Poland” and furthermore to note “that the Applicant waives his Access Order pending further determination by the Polish Courts on the understanding that the Polish Courts will act quickly in relation to same”. On 11 June 2024, the matter was again mentioned to the High Court (Gearty J), the voluntary return was confirmed by counsel for the respondent and, by consent, the previous order restraining removal of the child from Ireland was vacated. There was no factual determination of issues in the first proceedings and no order for return was made nor were any defences considered or determined. The first proceedings were formally concluded on 9 July 2024 when they were struck out, it being confirmed to Gearty J by counsel for the parties that the child had been returned to Poland.

Held by Jackson J that: (a) the child was wrongfully removed from Poland by the respondent on or about 21 June 2024; (b) the child remained habitually resident in Poland in the summer of 2024; (c) the applicant had rights of custody and he was exercising such rights at that time; (d) there was no evidence of conduct such as remotely meets the standard required to establish a grave risk of psychological or physical harm to the child in the event of a return; and (e) the child had expressed a wish not to return but Jackson J found this not to be independent and to have been the subject of considerable influence.

Jackson J held that, in those circumstances, the Convention mandated that the child be returned to Poland forthwith. Jackson J so ordered. Jackson J held that it was important that the child be returned such that she could commence school in Poland for the new academic year. Jackson J therefore ordered that the child be returned on or before 11 August 2025. Jackson J held that she would hear from the parties as to whether there were any necessary undertakings required at a time of their convenience on 28 July 2025.

Application granted.

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Nuala Jackson delivered on the 21 ^st day of July 2025 .

INTRODUCTION

1 The Applicant issued proceedings on the 20 ^th January 2025 seeking the return of the minor, M.X., to Poland pursuant to the provisions of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Convention”) and Council Regulation 2019/1111/EC (“the Regulation”). The identity of the parties and certain potentially identifying information has been redacted or presented in a manner which minimises the potential for the minor to be identified. The case is unusual insofar as it is the second set of proceedings seeking such relief, the first such having commenced in July 2023 (“the first proceedings”) and having concluded by Orders of this Court (Gearty J.) on the 30 ^th May 2024, the 11 ^th June 2024 and the 9 ^th July 2024, the first of which Orders recites “… the parties by said Counsel informing the Court that this action has settled and that [M.X.] the minor named in the title hereof will be voluntarily returned to the jurisdiction of Poland in or around the first week of July 2024”. This first Order continues on to note the undertaking of the Applicant father “not to pursue a prosecution in criminal proceedings against the Respondent in the Jurisdiction of Poland” and furthermore to note “that the Applicant waives his Access Order pending further determination by the Polish Courts on the understanding that the Polish Courts will act quickly in relation to same …”.

2 On the 11 ^th June 2024, the matter was again mentioned to this Court (Gearty J.), the voluntary return was confirmed by Counsel for the Respondent and, by consent, the previous Order restraining removal of the child from Ireland was vacated.

3 It must be stated that there was no factual determination of issues in these first proceedings and no Order for return was made nor were any defences considered or determined. These first proceedings were formally concluded on the 9 ^th July 2024 when the first proceedings were struck out, it being confirmed to this Court (Gearty J.) by Counsel for the parties that the child had been returned to Poland. It would appear that, contrary to the confirmation given to this Court, the Respondent herein purchased a return ticket at the time of return to Poland in June 2024 and by the 9 ^th July 2024 had returned to Ireland with the child. The child did return to Poland (brought by the Respondent mother) subsequent to the recording of the agreement for voluntary return in late May but this was arranged by the Respondent as a potentially temporary visit only and she, once again, left Poland for Ireland, having remained there but a short period. The Applicant states that he ended the first proceedings because he believed that the child was back in Poland as, it must be added, did this Court.

4 This presents a most unsatisfactory situation both in terms of the applicable legislation and the international child abduction regime here engaged and also in terms of the representations and submissions made to this Court in the context of the first proceedings. For the avoidance of all doubt, as regards the latter, I have no reason to doubt that the legal representatives of the Respondent in the first proceedings (she had the benefit of a solicitor and experienced Counsel) at all times acted in accordance with instructions. I will consider the matter of the Respondent's instructions further below. As regards the former, I consider it appropriate to reference and recognise the endorsement of amicable resolution and of voluntary return reflected in the legislative framework applicable. Article 7c) of the Convention states:

“Central Authorities shall co-operate with each other and promote co-operation amongst the competent authorities in their respective States to secure the prompt return of children and to achieve the other objects of this Convention.

In particular, either directly or through any intermediary, they shall take all appropriate measures – …

c) to secure the voluntary return of the child or to bring about an amicable resolution of the issues; …”

5 Article 10 of the Convention states:

“The Central Authority of the State where the child is shall take or cause to be taken all appropriate measures in order to obtain the voluntary return of the child.”

6 Recital 43 of the Regulation states, inter alia:

“In all cases concerning children, and in particular in cases of international child abduction, courts should consider the possibility of achieving solutions through mediation and other appropriate means, assisted, where appropriate, by existing networks and support structures for mediation in cross-border parental responsibility disputes.”

7 Article 25 of the Regulation states:

“Article 25

Alternative dispute resolution

As early as possible and at any stage of the proceedings, the court either directly or, where appropriate, with the assistance of the Central Authorities, shall invite the parties to consider whether they are willing to engage in mediation or other means of alternative dispute resolution, unless this is contrary to the best interests of the child, it is not appropriate in the particular case or would unduly delay the proceedings.”

8 It is regrettable that notwithstanding the conclusion of the 2023 proceedings little in excess of one year ago, the issue of the abduction of M.X. has, yet again, come before this Court at this time.

9 I was provided, by way of exhibit, with a transcript of the hearing before the Polish Court on the 11 ^th June 2024. Both parties attended this hearing and were legally represented at it. It is of considerable concern that on that date the Respondent informed the Polish Court:

• a. Through her lawyer, that he did not know whether the case in Ireland has been concluded (00.04.02). (The Applicant's lawyer stated that a decision had been “passed” in Ireland and that the Respondent had been “ordered” to return. It was indicated that this return should take place by the end of August). The Irish Order of the 30 ^th May 2024 would not appear to have been provided to the Polish Court although perfected on the 31 ^st May 2024.

• b. The Respondent informed the Polish...