Child and Family Agency v RD

Last updated

Child and Family Agency v RD [2014] IESC 47 [1] is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court confirmed that jurisdiction of EU states which first issue orders have primacy but that the High Court in Ireland has the right under EU law to grant provisional protection orders to allow a child to stay in Ireland. [2] [3] The case clarified the jurisdiction of Irish courts under Article 20 of the European Union's Council Regulation No 2201/2003 on parental responsibility. [4] [5]

Contents

Child and Family Agency v RD
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case nameChild and Family Agency v RD
Decided18 July 2014
Citation(s)[2014] IESC 47
Court membership
Judges sittingJustice O'Donnell, Justice McKechnie, Justice Laffoy
Keywords

Background

In January 2014, RD and her son, P, moved from Birmingham to Ireland. In February, an order was made by the Birmingham County Court to place P in the care of the Child and Family Agency. A subsequent order by the UK High Court, was made in April, for P to return to England. P was found in Dublin with his father, who authorities believed to be abusive. RD contended that the father had followed them there and she was no longer in a relationship with him.

In June 2014, the UK High Court made two orders. The first was a declaration under Article 17 of Regulation 2201/2003 [6] which meant that Ireland did not have jurisdiction to decide matters concerning parental responsibility of P. This declaration was made on the grounds that the courts of England and Wales were first to hold the issue of care and custody of the child. The second order was made pursuant to Article 20 of the Regulation, [7] and meant that the child would be placed in the care of Birmingham City Council. [8] However, the child would be allowed to finish his school year.

RD appealed these orders in the Supreme Court arguing that she had been a victim of domestic violence and wanted to protect her child, who may be at risk of harm if returned to England. RD expressed in a letter that she was appealing against her child's return to England under the care of the Birmingham City Council. She argued that the care order was made in England when she was already living in Ireland and she was therefore, unaware of the order. The Child and Family Agency advised the court that P wished to remain in Ireland with his mother and that he was doing well in care. The court dismissed the appeal against the declaration made by the UK High Court under Article 17. The court adjourned its decision for the appeal against the order pursuant to Article 20.

Holding of the Supreme Court

Justice O'Donnell delivered the only written judgment for the Supreme Court (with which the other judges agreed).

Article 17

It was decided that the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 17. The consequence of this decision is that, it is for the English and Welsh courts to decide on the care and custody of children whose habitual residence is in England and Wales.

Article 20

Justice O'Donnell stated that the Irish Supreme Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 20, which is provisional and protective relief. Article 20 provides that Member States may exercise its jurisdiction to grant provisional and protective relief to assist in foreign proceedings. It must appropriate for a court to grant this relief.

Conclusion

The Court dismissed the appeal against the declaration made pursuant to Article 17 and adjourned the court for one week pursuant to Article 20. [9]

Subsequent developments

The Supreme Court's decision in Child and Family Agency v RD was subsequently referred to three times in the judgement of CFA v CJ and JS. [10] RD was referred to in paragraph 45, where it was decided that the Irish courts do not have jurisdiction to rule on the matter of parental responsibility of an English resident. [11]

RD was also relied upon in paragraph 59, where the court stated that, the High Court had jurisdiction pursuant to Article 20, to make provisional and protective measures regarding foreign proceedings. [12]

RD was again referred to in paragraph 65, where the court acknowledged the principles set out in RD. Justice Finlay Geoghegan stated that the High Court "cannot have any greater jurisdiction pursuant to Article 20 than that determined by O'Donnell J". [13]

Related Research Articles

The freedom of movement for workers is a policy chapter of the acquis communautaire of the European Union. The free movement of workers means that nationals of any member state of the European Union can take up an employment in another member state on the same conditions as the nationals of that particular member state. In particular, no discrimination based on nationality is allowed. It is part of the free movement of persons and one of the four economic freedoms: free movement of goods, services, labour and capital. Article 45 TFEU states that:

  1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community.
  2. Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
  3. It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:
  4. The provisions of this article shall not apply to employment in the public service.

In family law, contact, visitation and access are synonym terms that denotes the time that a child spends with the noncustodial parent, according to an agreed or court specified parenting schedule. The visitation term is not used in a shared parenting arrangement where the mother and father have joint physical custody.

Hague Convention on Parental Responsibility and Protection of Children

The Hague Convention on parental responsibility and protection of children, or Hague Convention 1996, officially Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children or Hague Convention 1996 is a convention of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. It covers civil measures of protection concerning children, ranging from orders concerning parental responsibility and contact to public measures of protection or care, and from matters of representation to the protection of children's property. It is therefore much broader in scope than two earlier conventions of the HCCH on the subject.

Adrian Hardiman

Adrian Hardiman was an Irish judge who served as a Judge of the Supreme Court from 2000 to 2016.

<i>Chartier v Chartier</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Chartier v Chartier, 1999 1 S.C.R. 242 is a leading Canadian case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on the legal role of step parents in a marriage. The Court held that a step parent who is found to be in loco parentis cannot unilaterally withdraw from the family relationship.

Indian Child Welfare Act 1978 U.S. federal law regulating tribal jurisdiction over court cases involving children

The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) is a United States federal law that governs jurisdiction over the removal of Native American (Indian) children from their families in custody, foster care and adoption cases.

A preliminary ruling is a decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the interpretation of European Union law, given in response to a request from a court or tribunal of a European Union Member State. A preliminary ruling is a final determination of EU law, with no scope for appeal. The ECJ hands down its decision to the referring court, which is then obliged to implement the ruling.

Brussels II

Brussels II Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, which came into force on 1 March 2001, sets out a system for the allocation of jurisdiction and the reciprocal enforcement of judgments between European Union Member States and was modelled on the 1968 Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. It was intended to regulate domains that were excluded from the Brussels Convention and Brussels I. The Brussels II Regulation deals with conflict of law issues in family law between member states; in particular those related to divorce and child custody. The Regulation seeks to facilitate free movement of divorce and related judgments between Member States.

The Thirty-first Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Act 2012 amended the Constitution of Ireland by inserting clauses relating to children's rights and the right and duty of the state to take child protection measures. It was passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas (parliament) on 10 October 2012, and approved at a referendum on 10 November 2012, by 58% of voters on a turnout of 33.5%. Its enactment was delayed by a High Court case challenging the conduct of the referendum. The High Court's rejection of the challenge was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 24 April 2015. It was signed into law by the President on 28 April 2015.

Treaties of the European Union Survey of the topic

The Treaties of the European Union are a set of international treaties between the European Union (EU) member states which sets out the EU's constitutional basis. They establish the various EU institutions together with their remit, procedures and objectives. The EU can only act within the competences granted to it through these treaties and amendment to the treaties requires the agreement and ratification of every single signatory.

<i>NIL/TU,O Child and Family Services Society v BC Government and Service Employees Union</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

NIL/TU,O Child and Family Services Society v BC Government and Service Employees' Union is a leading Supreme Court of Canada constitutional law case dealing with jurisdiction over labour relations in the context of federalism and Aboriginal rights.

2015 Danish European Union opt-out referendum

A referendum on one of the country's opt-outs from the European Union was held in Denmark on 3 December 2015. Specifically, the referendum was on whether to convert Denmark's current full opt-out on home and justice matters into an opt-out with case-by-case opt-in similar to those held by Ireland and the United Kingdom. Approval of the referendum was needed for Denmark to remain in Europol under the new rules. However, it was rejected by 53% of voters.

Mary Irvine is an Irish judge who is the President of the Irish High Court, the first woman appointed to that role. She first was a Judge of the High Court between 2007 to 2014. She was a Judge of the Court of Appeal from 2014 to 2019 and served as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Ireland from May 2019 until becoming President of the High Court on 18 June 2020. She is an ex officio member of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.

<i>Re N</i> (Children)

In the matter of N (Children) [2016] UKSC 15 was a 2016 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that considered the relevant jurisdiction for deciding the future welfare of two young girls.

<i>Nottinghamshire County Council v B</i> 2011 Irish Supreme Court case

Nottinghamshire County Council v B[2011] IESC 48; [2013] 4 IR 662 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court refused to overturn an order of the High Court returning children of married parents from England to that jurisdiction, following a request by the English courts under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980.

<i>Child and Family Agency v McG and JC</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Child and Family Agency v McG and JC [2017] IESC 9, [2017] 1 IR 1 was a case in which the Irish supreme Court ruled that where a detention was lacking in due process of law due to breach of fundamental requirements of justice, it may be challenged through an application for release under the constitutional principle of habeas corpus even in the case of disputes as to the custody of children.

<i>Benedict McGowan and Others v Labour Court and Others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Benedict McGowan and Others v Labour Court and Others [2013] 2 ILRM 276; [2013] IESC 21; [2013] 3 IR 718 is an Irish Supreme Court case, where an appeal was granted and the court made a declaration that the provisions of Part III of the Industrial Relations Act are invalid considering the provisions of Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution of Ireland. This court questioned the method by which wages and other benefits were set on a collective basis across numerous sectors.

<i>T(D) v L(F) & Anor</i> Irish Supreme Court case

T(D) v L(F) & Anor, [2003] IESC 59 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in relation to foreign divorce proceedings, the burden of proof is on the parties to establish their domicile. Thus, in this case the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the husband and upheld the judgement of the High Court as he was unable to establish his domicile.

<i>K. (C.) v. K.</i> (J.) Irish Supreme Court case

K. (C.) v. K. (J.)[2004] IESC 21; [2004] 1 IR 224, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the doctrine of estoppel could not be used to change the status of a person, when the status, as a matter of law, never actually changed.

References

  1. ↑ "Child and Family Agency -v- RD [2014] IESC 47 (18 July 2014)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 12 May 2020.
  2. ↑ Geoffrey, Shannon (2016). "Ninth Report of the Special Rapporteur on ChildProtection: A Report Submitted to the Oireachtas" (PDF). LENUS: 101.
  3. ↑ Child and Family Agency v RD [2014] IESC 47.
  4. ↑ "Conflicts of Law". Annual Review of Irish Law. 1 (1): 106. 2016 – via Westlaw IE.
  5. ↑ "EUR-Lex - 32003R2201 - EN - EUR-Lex". eur-lex.europa.eu. Retrieved 12 May 2020.
  6. ↑ Regulation 2201/2003, Art 17.
  7. ↑ Regulation 2201/2003, Art 20.
  8. ↑ Beaumont, Paul (2017). Cross-Border Litigation in Europe. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  9. ↑ Child and Family Agency v RD [2014] at par 18.
  10. ↑ Child & Family Agency v J (C) & S (C) [2015] IECA 86.
  11. ↑ Child & Family Agency v J (C) & S (C) [2015] IECA 86 at par 45.
  12. ↑ Child & Family Agency v J (C) & S (C) [2015] IECA 86 at par 59.
  13. ↑ Child & Family Agency v J (C) & S (C) [2015] IECA 86 at par 65.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.