Leaving the country with his daughter

Nicburberry

Hi everyone,

Bit of background, myself and my ex have a 4 year old daughter , separated 3 years he lives with someone else . Pays maintanence and has regular access.

He recently broke access , prioritising another person over the access of daughter. It was only supposed to be temporary but is being extended . Someone of his other halves family moved in to his house and is taking our daughters room so he can't have her over night due to this.

I tried to leave last year, back to my place of origin but got a letter from his solicitor stating I need court order if I wanted to move away.

Due to his lack of interest regarding access I feel as though I should go without his consent and then only once I'm back home deal with the consequences. Maybe he won't do anything about it..but maybe he will...

Would the court go in my favour if I provided proof of his lack of interest and is it a lengthy process as I need to go asap

Little CuChulainn

Your plan is incredibly stupid. Consult a solicitor before you do anything.

Acara

Nicburberry wrote: »

Hi everyone,

Bit of background, myself and my ex have a 4 year old daughter , separated 3 years he lives with someone else . Pays maintanence and has regular access.

He recently broke access , prioritising another person over the access of daughter. It was only supposed to be temporary but is being extended . Someone of his other halves family moved in to his house and is taking our daughters room so he can't have her over night due to this.

I tried to leave last year, back to my place of origin but got a letter from his solicitor stating I need court order if I wanted to move away.

Due to his lack of interest regarding access I feel as though I should go without his consent and then only once I'm back home deal with the consequences. Maybe he won't do anything about it..but maybe he will...

Would the court go in my favour if I provided proof of his lack of interest and is it a lengthy process as I need to go asap

Where is your place of origin???

Penny Tration

Instead of being spiteful and leaving the country, why not consider the best interests of your child? Your child deserves to have both parents. By all accounts, he's spending time with the child and paying his way so what gives you the right to take that away from your child?

So she can't sleep over for a short while. Big deal. she can still see him and spend time with him.

Don't use your child as a weapon

Victor

The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction comes to mind. Leaving Ireland without agreement would likely result in court action returning you to Ireland - at your expense.

Nicburberry wrote: »

He recently broke access , prioritising another person over the access of daughter.

Isn't it a right of access, not an obligation to care?

Tasden

I would think that his solicitor sending you a letter preventing you from leaving the country with his child would indicate his interest in seeing and caring for his child.

Also, just on a personal note, not sure if it is off topic or not but I think it needs to be said. Your child has a father that loves her enough to legally fight for her to stay in the country, to have regular access and pay maintenance. He respected you enough to tell you that he couldn't stick to the usual access arrangements, and he told you why he couldn't. There are many children who barely see their other parent because of spite and bitterness getting in the way on one or both sides. Please think very carefully before you willingly remove your child from her family.

Rasmus

Are you talking about taking your child out of the country or the district?

Tasden

Rasmus wrote: »

Are you talking about taking your child out of the country or the district?

The title says leaving the country.

Rasmus

Tasden wrote: »

The title says leaving the country.

Yes it does, sorry about that.

Tasden

Rasmus wrote: »

Yes it does, sorry about that.

No need to apologise! Was just pointing out where it was said about it being the country

zeffabelli

Yes international extradition is nigh impossible in reality but the right thing to do is to get clearance from the courts.

Petition the court.

tayto lover

Put you child first OP. She might not forgive you in time and it could all backfire on you.
Your husband has rights too and seems to be very interested in his relationship with his daughter.Forget about the grudges and get on as well as you can with him. It will all be for the best.

CelticRambler

zeffabelli wrote: »

Yes international extradition is nigh impossible in reality but the right thing to do is to get clearance from the courts.

That's completely untrue. There is a well-oiled mechanism for quickly, at times aggressively, finding and dealing with parents who have unlawfully removed a child from its habitual jurisdiction.

@OP: don't even think about moving your child without consent. Apart from bringing a whole heap of trouble and cost on yourself, if the father has already warned you about taking your daughter out of the country and you take her anyway, he would be within his rights to seek full custody and you would almost certainly lose her.

The details are very sketchy, but it does seem that the father has actually behaved fairly by *not* expecting your daughter to stay overnight when there's someone else staying in the house - a lot of mothers would use that as a reason to re-negotiate access.

zeffabelli

CelticRambler wrote: »

That's completely untrue. There is a well-oiled mechanism for quickly, at times aggressively, finding and dealing with parents who have unlawfully removed a child from its habitual jurisdiction.

@OP: don't even think about moving your child without consent. Apart from bringing a whole heap of trouble and cost on yourself, if the father has already warned you about taking your daughter out of the country and you take her anyway, he would be within his rights to seek full custody and you would almost certainly lose her.

The details are very sketchy, but it does seem that the father has actually behaved fairly by *not* expecting your daughter to stay overnight when there's someone else staying in the house - a lot of mothers would use that as a reason to re-negotiate access.

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Extradition is extremely difficult.

Secondly the fathers home is the child's home too. The child's right to be there is the priority.

If he does not enforce that right, then his access/custody rights are compromised because he has failed to provide a non custodial residence for the child.

Rights are rights until they are challenged and you can see how flimsy they actually are.

CelticRambler

Extradition doesn't come into it. If the "destination country" is signed up to the Hague Convention, it's simply (as simple as international justice ever is) a question of sending someone to take the child away from the offending parent and bringing her back to her legal domicile, which is the country she's been living in for the previous six months or more. It's nothing to do with what house she's living in; the courts will deal with any questions about that once they've got the child back. If necessary, they'll make her a ward of court while they figure it out, but the parent who broke the law is at an immediate disadvantage.

Obviously if the child is hidden away in some African jungle village, that changes things, but there are relatively few places on the planet now where a child can be put out of reach of a determined other parent.

Basically, the OP would be incredibly stupid to try it unless she's got good connections with the local mafia wherever she's thinking of going.

chops018

I just feel really sorry for the child in all this. Imagine what he/she going through, because of their selfish parents

gordongekko

chops018 wrote: »

I just feel really sorry for the child in all this. Imagine what he/she going through, because of their selfish parents

Sounds like both of them love the kid, has 2 loving homes and is probably spoiled rotten by both parents.

tayto lover

gordongekko wrote: »

Sounds like both of them love the kid, has 2 loving homes and is probably spoiled rotten by both parents.

They surely do love the kid BUT if they're spoiling the child with gifts just to seemingly get one over on the other parent then it will come back to bite both of them. Spoiling the child is not good parenting in the long run.

chops018

gordongekko wrote: »

Sounds like both of them love the kid, has 2 loving homes and is probably spoiled rotten by both parents.

Where in the OP does it say anything like that?

I know you said it "sounds". But if he is prioritising his "other halves family" staying in what is to be the childs room when he/she stays over then the child hardly has two loving homes. We have no idea if he/she is probably spoiled rotten as you say.

Horrible situation for the kid. Has a father, who while he probably loves the child and wants to be involved in their life, is making another life with someone else and only wants to see the child on his terms (by the sounds of it). The OP is not happy that he is moving on and breaking access (breaking the access and being unhappy is fair enough though) so they are using the child now and threatening to remove he/she from the country (probably in spite).

Best course of action would be to try and vary the access in my opinion. Back to the courts - not off with their child to another country.

Have you any experience in dealing with Family Law matters? It can be very messy, and both sides usually forget it's supposed to be what's best for the child and that they should "try" put their own differences aside. Going from the OP, they do have an argument if their ex-partner is not abiding by the access order ruled by the Judge. As I said, best course of action is to go back to court and try vary the access, with the childs best interests in mind.

Nicburberry

He wants minimal access. I sat in his solicitors and am very civil toward this guy because after all he is her father. I've tried getting on with him for her sake but I can't be bothered anymore

My family and support network is in the UK. To be told that others are a priority over our daughter is just a kick in the teeth . I'm only here because I have to be.

Tasden

Nicburberry wrote: »

He wants minimal access. I sat in his solicitors and am very civil toward this guy because after all he is her father. I've tried getting on with him for her sake but I can't be bothered anymore

My family and support network is in the UK. To be told that others are a priority over our daughter is just a kick in the teeth . I'm only here because I have to be.

You said in your op he has regular access.

CelticRambler

Nicburberry wrote: »

My family and support network is in the UK.

Then you definitely should not try an unlawful removal. If he doesn't want your daughter staying as often as before, then take a constructive approach and suggest that it is time to formally change the existing arrangement. Ask him to agree to your daughter being re-located to the UK in exchange for her spending a certain number of weeks with him during some of the holiday periods.

It sounds like you have a reasonable channel of communication, so it should be possible to work something out together, get a solicitor to give it the once over and have it rubber stamped by the court.

Be bothered - because if you really won't enjoy the stress and aggro that comes with a Hague Convention process. And be in no doubt that the UK courts and police will be fully geared up to take your daughter from you if/when her father lodges a demand in Ireland.

Mr. Incognito

You have a few hypothetical options.

1. Leave to the UK. Ilegally. Deal with the consequences. These are that he can petition the UK courts for full custody. Not saying it would be granted, will depend on a lot of things but abducting your child illegally will not go in your favour. Especially after receiving a solicitors letter telling you not to do this.

2. Petition the courts here on the basis that your want to relocate to the UK. Your child's father will most likely resist this and the courts default setting will be to keep the child in this jurisdication.

You have only one real option and that is to consult your solicitor. Even booking a flight here would be a bonehead move.

The UK is a short hop away. No more than a ferry or a flight. You're not going to get very far with this silly idea.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

coolhandluke

Nicburberry wrote: »

He wants minimal access. I sat in his solicitors and am very civil toward this guy because after all he is her father. I've tried getting on with him for her sake but I can't be bothered anymore

My family and support network is in the UK. To be told that others are a priority over our daughter is just a kick in the teeth . I'm only here because I have to be.

Be in no doubt ,if you take the child to the uk without the necessary legal process/consent and he lodges a claim against you, you are in a whole world of trouble. The Uk courts will not be on your side, they will simply have to abide by a ruling in this country.

It has happened irish parents who have removed children for the us, without consent.

Mr. Incognito

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think you will find that it will become very relevant if she leaves the jurisdiction with the child that they put her on notice that such was illegal.

Graham

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I think you will find that it will become very relevant if she leaves the jurisdiction with the child that they put her on notice that such was illegal.

If there's no court order mandating that the child remains in the jurisdiction what would make leaving the jurisdiction illegal?

Added: genuinely curious, I'm not suggesting you're wrong.

Peregrinus

If the effect of removing the child from the jurisdiction is to frustrate the other parent's court-ordered access, their guardianship rights, etc (and you don't have the other parent's consent) then, yes, it's "child abduction" for the purposes of the already-mentioned Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and the Convention processes kick in to effect the return of the child.

Graham

Peregrinus wrote: »

If the effect of removing the child from the jurisdiction is to frustrate the other parent's court-ordered access, their guardianship rights, etc (and you don't have the other parent's consent) then, yes, it's "child abduction" for the purposes of the already-mentioned Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and the Convention processes kick in to effect the return of the child.

I expected that would be the case where the access is court ordered. What if there is no such court order and previous access was negotiated and agreed by the parents directly?

CelticRambler

Graham wrote: »

If there's no court order mandating that the child remains in the jurisdiction what would make leaving the jurisdiction illegal?

The jurisdiction refers to the legal "space" in which a court has the power to make orders. It doesn't matter whether the court has actually made any (e.g. if you assault someone in Temple Bar, it doesn't matter where you come from, or that you've never commited a criminal act in Ireland before, it's an Irish court that will try you.)

In family law, the court with jurisdiction depends on the habitual residence of the individuals. When it comes to children, the child has rights independent of his/her parents, so it is his/her habitual residence that determines which court will make orders for custody.

Two parents in perfect agreement can make a decision to remove their child from the jurisdiction for any reason and for any length of time; but when there is disagreement - even if that is limited to an amicable separation - both parents lose the right to remove the child from the jurisdiction without the explicit consent of the other (even for holidays, school trips, etc). To do so is illegal by default.

Traditionally, movement between Ireland and England has been very easy, and elsewhere, we tend to travel in a family gang, which can lead Irish (resident) people to believe that travelling abroad with children is happy-go-lucky. Not so! If you spend time at any French airport, for example, you'll regularly see families pulled aside to have their documents checked, and reconcile differences between surnames (e.g. mother using her maiden name doesn't match children with father's surname, father not present, no autorisation de sortie du territoire, panicky phone calls trying to find the father before boarding ...)

Micheal O'Leary has a lot to answer for in this regard but while the procedures were being tightened up anyway, things are more strict now as the security services try to identify and stop unaccompanied teenagers making their way to the ISIS training camps.

Peregrinus

Graham wrote: »

I expected that would be the case where the access is court ordered. What if there is no such court order and previous access was negotiated and agreed by the parents directly?

The OP doesn't say whether the access is court-ordered or not, but the fact that she got a solicitor's letter might suggest that this went legal some time ago. Maybe I'm reading too much into this.

Regardless, even if there has been no court involvement to date, we have to ask if the father has joint guardianship? Again, the OP doesn't say. But if he does, and if she removes the child from the jurisdiction unilaterally, I think we're in Hague Convention country.

All of which goes to underline the soundness of the advice she's had since post #2; for the love of God, see a solicitor before doing anything like this. If she doesn't, it could end very, very badly.

Diamond Doll

I've an acquaintance who's in a very difficult situation where she had two kids in Ireland with her ex-husband, her fiance had two kids in Germany with his ex-girlfriend, and they've recently had a baby together (with her living in Ireland, him back in Germany.) It's a mess! She is German herself, and very keen to move back there. She's been in and out of the Irish courts for a year, since before the baby was born, but keeps being turned down. Her fiance doesn't want to move to Ireland as he'd be leaving his older children behind, but of course it means they rarely get time together as a family, which is especially difficult now that the new baby has arrived.

While I really feel for her, the older childrens' father does seem to have a genuine interest in his kids' upbringing, and it would seem completely unfair to move them away from him. There's no easy solution.

I do know another single mother who applied to move to Italy, and it was granted by the court, on the condition that she brings the kids back to Ireland for access three times a year (I think it's a week at Christmas, two weeks at Easter, three weeks during the summer.) So it does happen, sometimes, but from what I've heard it's quite unusual for judges to allow it unless there's very concrete evidence that it's in the child's best interests ... and even then, it'll just depend on the judge.

My own personal feeling is that it's really unfair on fathers in that situation. Say in the above case, three times a year really doesn't seem enough to have a proper parent-child relationship, no matter how much Skyping you do! It really sucks for the parent who wants to move, but I guess potentially being tied to a country is one of the sacrifices you make when having a child.

zeffabelli

Diamond Doll wrote: »

I've an acquaintance who's in a very difficult situation where she had two kids in Ireland with her ex-husband, her fiance had two kids in Germany with his ex-girlfriend, and they've recently had a baby together (with her living in Ireland, him back in Germany.) It's a mess! She is German herself, and very keen to move back there. She's been in and out of the Irish courts for a year, since before the baby was born, but keeps being turned down. Her fiance doesn't want to move to Ireland as he'd be leaving his older children behind, but of course it means they rarely get time together as a family, which is especially difficult now that the new baby has arrived.

While I really feel for her, the older childrens' father does seem to have a genuine interest in his kids' upbringing, and it would seem completely unfair to move them away from him. There's no easy solution.

I do know another single mother who applied to move to Italy, and it was granted by the court, on the condition that she brings the kids back to Ireland for access three times a year (I think it's a week at Christmas, two weeks at Easter, three weeks during the summer.) So it does happen, sometimes, but from what I've heard it's quite unusual for judges to allow it unless there's very concrete evidence that it's in the child's best interests ... and even then, it'll just depend on the judge.

My own personal feeling is that it's really unfair on fathers in that situation. Say in the above case, three times a year really doesn't seem enough to have a proper parent-child relationship, no matter how much Skyping you do! It really sucks for the parent who wants to move, but I guess potentially being tied to a country is one of the sacrifices you make when having a child.

If she can prove greater financial stability for her and the child, as well as a willingness to facilitate access then a judge will find that hard to say no to, as in a job prospect.

The father in this case, cannot even provide access as his has given his daughters space away to someone else. This wont look good.

CelticRambler

zeffabelli wrote: »

The father in this case, cannot even provide access as his has given his daughters space away to someone else. This wont look good.

The father's solicitor will inevitably present a different version of this situation to the way it's described here.

zeffabelli wrote: »

If she can prove greater financial stability for her and the child, as well as a willingness to facilitate access then a judge will find that hard to say no to, as in a job prospect.

Sure, that would work perfectly in relation to the new (German) baby, and if the mother is prepared to cede custody of her Irish children to the father, no problem. But financial stability isn't enough on its own to justify breaking the extended family connections of settled older children just so the mother can live a new life with someone else.

Kevin3

Graham wrote: »

If there's no court order mandating that the child remains in the jurisdiction what would make leaving the jurisdiction illegal?

Added: genuinely curious, I'm not suggesting you're wrong.

There's no need to consider the Hague Convention. This is a straight forward criminal offence which the gardaí deal with:

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997
16.—(1) A person to whom this section applies shall be guilty of an offence, who takes, sends or keeps a child under the age of 16 years out of the State or causes a child under that age to be so taken, sent or kept—
(a) in defiance of a court order, or
(b) without the consent of each person who is a parent, or guardian or person to whom custody of the child has been granted by a court unless the consent of a court was obtained.
(2) This section applies to a parent, guardian or a person to whom custody of the child has been granted by a court but does not apply to a parent who is not a guardian of the child.
(3) It shall be a defence to a charge under this section that the defendant—
(a) has been unable to communicate with the persons referred to in subsection (1) (b) but believes they would consent if they were aware of the relevant circumstances; or
(b) did not intend to deprive others having rights of guardianship or custody in relation to the child of those rights.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both.
(5) Any proceedings under this section shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Source: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/16/enacted/en/html#sec16

A very serious offence at that which can attract a 7 year prison sentence not to mention where necessary, the resources of the state in extraditing an offender.

Graham

Kevin3 wrote: »

There's no need to consider the Hague Convention. This is a straight forward criminal offence which the gardaí deal with:



Source: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/16/enacted/en/html#sec16

A very serious offence at that which can attract a 7 year prison sentence not to mention where necessary, the resources of the state in extraditing an offender.

Without knowing the specifics it appears there are circumstances where the action considered by the OP would not be an offence.

Kevin3

Graham wrote: »

Without knowing the specifics it appears there are circumstances where the action considered by the OP would not be an offence.

What circumstances? The legislation clearly makes it an offence to take a child out of the jurisdiction without consent from both parents. The other parent clearly doesn't want the child leaving the jurisdiction considering the solicitors letter.

zeffabelli

CelticRambler wrote: »

The father's solicitor will inevitably present a different version of this situation to the way it's described here.



Sure, that would work perfectly in relation to the new (German) baby, and if the mother is prepared to cede custody of her Irish children to the father, no problem. But financial stability isn't enough on its own to justify breaking the extended family connections of settled older children just so the mother can live a new life with someone else.

In reality it often is. IF the custodian has a chance to provide better for the child with a better job and better money AND can faciliate access, vs. example a life on social welfare, then yes, a judge will find it very hard to say no to that.

Mr. Incognito

zeffabelli wrote: »

In reality it often is. IF the custodian has a chance to provide better for the child with a better job and better money AND can faciliate access, vs. example a life on social welfare, then yes, a judge will find it very hard to say no to that.

I would disagree with you there.

The default of any judge is the welfare of the child.

They do not take the parents circumstances into account when deciding whether someone should be in the same geographical area as the child.

Tasden

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I would disagree with you there.

The default of any judge is the welfare of the child.

They do not take the parents circumstances into account when deciding whether someone should be in the same geographical area as the child.

Also, they will not look too kindly on someone who has taken the child out of the country prior to getting permission/consent from the other parent, regardless of whether it is a better situation or not.

zeffabelli

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I would disagree with you there.

The default of any judge is the welfare of the child.

They do not take the parents circumstances into account when deciding whether someone should be in the same geographical area as the child.

Money is very much taken into consideration in relation to the welfare of the child.

And in also to consider, it will also depend on the citizenship of the child.

CelticRambler

So is family (and friends/social network) and older children also get a say in whether they stay or go. In some cases, it's better that the custodial arrangements are reversed, and if a determined, well-intentioned father presents that option to the judge, a mother seeming to base her case largely on her own financial interest can find her position greatly weakened.

zeffabelli

CelticRambler wrote: »

So is family (and friends/social network) and older children also get a say in whether they stay or go. In some cases, it's better that the custodial arrangements are reversed, and if a determined, well-intentioned father presents that option to the judge, a mother seeming to base her case largely on her own financial interest can find her position greatly weakened.

Not really, unless he can pay into her pension, alimony where there is divorce, and compensate for the financial losses by remaining in the country.

Seriously money and provision are are very much linked to the welfare of the child. You honestly think judges think poverty is good for children?

CelticRambler

As we're constantly reminded, men still have greater earning power than women, so I really don't know where you're going with this idea. But I can tell you from first hand experience that money is well down the Family Court judges' list of priorities when deciding these kinds of inherently complicated cross-border cases.

zeffabelli

CelticRambler wrote: »

As we're constantly reminded, men still have greater earning power than women, so I really don't know where you're going with this idea. But I can tell you from first hand experience that money is well down the Family Court judges' list of priorities when deciding these kinds of inherently complicated cross-border cases.

And you think you are the only one with first hand experience?

Mr. Incognito

zeffabelli wrote: »

Money is very much taken into consideration in relation to the welfare of the child.

And in also to consider, it will also depend on the citizenship of the child.

Not from my experience in the courts.

A child that is loved and well cared for will trump money every single time. Once a parent has the capacity to provide a home and a loving and supportive environment the courts dont factor money in after that.

Heres the explanatory memorandum of the 2015 Act. It sets out the considerations in black and white. They refer to capacity of the parents. Financial means are not mentioned anywhere.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2015/1415/b1415d-memonew.pdf

If one parent is a millionaire and one is working minimum wage the court will seek to give them both equal access if they are both willing and available and responsible parents. Money is usually a non issue and never substitutes love.

Citizenship is a non issue. Always.

zeffabelli

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Not from my experience in the courts.

A child that is loved and well cared for will trump money every single time. Once a parent has the capacity to provide a home and a loving and supportive environment the courts dont factor money in after that.

Heres the explanatory memorandum of the 2015 Act. It sets out the considerations in black and white. They refer to capacity of the parents. Financial means are not mentioned anywhere.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2015/1415/b1415d-memonew.pdf

If one parent is a millionaire and one is working minimum wage the court will seek to give them both equal access if they are both willing and available and responsible parents. Money is usually a non issue and never substitutes love.

Citizenship is a non issue. Always.

Can you explain how citizenship is a non issue? How can the Irish state force people who are not Irish citizens to reside here?

Of course its an issue...

Mr. Incognito

zeffabelli wrote: »

Can you explain how citizenship is a non issue? How can the Irish state force people who are not Irish citizens to reside here?

Of course its an issue...

I believed we were discussing citizenship of the child which is always a non issue.

You are talking about citizenship of the parents?

Well to explain again, the courts look at the child first and their well being. They can only deal with people in this jurisdiction. They dont make orders against non residents. Citizenship and residence are two totally seperate issues. If you have a child here you have decided to move here. The State didnt force you here. If you want to leave and take your kid the Court can absolutely veto that want if the other parent refuses to give consent and can be in the childs life.

zeffabelli

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I believed we were discussing citizenship of the child which is always a non issue.

You are talking about citizenship of the parents?

Well to explain again, the courts look at the child first and their well being. They can only deal with people in this jurisdiction. They dont make orders against non residents. Citizenship and residence are two totally seperate issues. If you have a child here you have decided to move here. The State didnt force you here. If you want to leave and take your kid the Court can absolutely veto that want if the other parent refuses to give consent and can be in the childs life.

I'm talking about both.

Citizenship and residency are not the same thing. There are plenty of non citizen children here, and given that in both the examples in this thread, the OP and the case of the German child, we don't know the citizenship of either.

So even if they are in THIS jurisdiction, the state can't really force non non citizens to continue to reside here, other than prison.

Mr. Incognito

zeffabelli wrote: »

I'm talking about both.

Citizenship and residency are not the same thing. There are plenty of non citizen children here, and given that in both the examples in this thread, the OP and the case of the German child, we don't know the citizenship of either.

So even if they are in THIS jurisdiction, the state can't really force non non citizens to continue to reside here, other than prison.

Yes they can and through the Hague convention they can compell the return of the child to the jurisdiction. I am glad we agree citizenship and residence are not the same thing. Residence is relevant as i pointed out.

I think you are confusing your opinion with the law. Citizenship is almost always irrelevant. I cant think of any example where it would be. Once you are resident Irish law applies.

zeffabelli

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Yes they can and through the Hague convention they can compell the return of the child to the jurisdiction. I am glad we agree citizenship and residence are not the same thing. Residence is relevant as i pointed out.

I think you are confusing your opinion with the law. Citizenship is almost always irrelevant. I cant think of any example where it would be. Once you are resident Irish law applies.

But doesn't that refer to the status quo custody arrangement...so it would depend on what custody order is in place...if there is no custody order then in the case of unwed parents its the mother, and obviously in divorce, bar a sole custody order that it is to the defaul residence...in the case of abduction..

But I am not talking about abduction, I am talking about in the petitioning of a court for being able to relocate... which has nothing to do with the Hague convention.