The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal arising from Hague Convention proceedings concerning the return of three children from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland. Delivering judgment, Lady Chief Justice Siobhan Keegan confirmed that although the court may have taken a different analytical approach, the trial judge was entitled to refuse a return order, noting that acquiescence constituted a strong defence.
The proceedings involved a Sudanese couple who had travelled through several countries before the respondent brought the children to Northern Ireland in October 2024 and sought asylum there. The appellant later initiated return proceedings under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985. The respondent resisted return based on the exceptions under Article 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention, including acquiescence, grave risk of harm and the objections of the two older children.
Having reviewed the evidential record, the Court of Appeal held that acquiescence had been clearly established. This included an email sent to the court office in December 2024 confirming agreement that the children should remain in Northern Ireland, and a position paper filed by the appellant’s legal representatives attaching a draft order reflecting that agreement. The appellant only reversed position months later after further allegations arose. Lady Chief Justice Keegan described this as an unusually strong example of acquiescence.
The court also upheld the trial judge’s finding of grave risk, accepting that complaints of domestic and sexual violence made in Malta and Northern Ireland provided independent support for the respondent’s allegations. The Official Solicitor’s report, which expressed serious concern about the children’s experiences, further reinforced the assessment of risk. Although the appellant proposed undertakings, the court considered compliance uncertain given his previous conduct.
In addition, the court found no error in the trial judge’s reliance on the objections of the older children, who expressed clear preferences for remaining in Belfast. Their views were considered genuinely held, age appropriate and untainted by coaching.
As the establishment of any one Article 13 exception was sufficient to justify refusal of return, the appeal was dismissed in full.