D.K v P.I.K (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The parties, married in 2005 in England, have three dependent children aged approximately fourteen and a half, twelve, and ten years. The husband holds a diplomatic posting in Rome with the Irish Government, while the wife is English-qualified as a veterinarian. The marriage broke down in 2015, and the parties agreed to separate in 2016. The children were subject to a week on, week off shared parenting arrangement facilitated by therapists and counselors.

In 2019, the children were wrongfully removed by the wife from Rome to Denmark without the husband's consent, triggering Hague Convention child abduction proceedings. After multiple court hearings in Denmark, the children were ordered returned to Rome in December 2019. The wife had previously initiated family law proceedings in Italy, which were declined jurisdiction due to the husband's diplomatic immunity. The parties continue ongoing judicial separation proceedings in Ireland.

The wife seeks to relocate the children to Denmark, citing educational, financial, and familial support benefits. The husband opposes relocation, emphasizing the stability and welfare of the children in Rome and his ability to provide for them.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the applicant mother should be permitted to relocate the children from Rome, Italy to Denmark.
2. The interpretation and application of the best interests and welfare principle of the children under Irish constitutional and statutory law in the context of international relocation.
3. The relevance and effect of diplomatic immunity on jurisdiction and enforcement of family law orders in Italy.
4. The weight to be accorded to the children’s ascertainable views in relocation decisions.
5. The applicability of Hague Convention and related child abduction proceedings to the relocation request.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The children’s education and welfare would be equally or better served in Denmark due to grants, schooling costs, and health benefits.
• The wife has family support in Denmark, including parents who purchased a home there, providing a more relaxed and convenient lifestyle for the children.
• The wife is qualified as a veterinarian but faces difficulties working in Italy due to language and certification barriers.
• The wife contends that relocation would provide better work-life balance and financial independence.
• The wife proposes detailed access arrangements for the father to maintain contact, including frequent visits and holiday sharing.
• The wife acknowledges past mistakes, including the wrongful removal of the children, and apologizes for related conduct.

Respondent's Arguments

• The children have established stability, schooling, and social networks in Rome, which is in their best interests to maintain.
• The father has a steady civil service position with prospects of continued employment in Rome and pays school fees.
• The father disputes the wife’s claim that she cannot work as a veterinarian in Italy and has researched the certification process.
• The father emphasizes the importance of maintaining the sibling unit and the children’s strong wish to remain together and not relocate.
• The father highlights the logistical and financial difficulties of relocation and access from Denmark.
• The father notes the continuing therapeutic and shared parenting arrangements working well in Rome.
• The father asserts that diplomatic immunity issues do not affect the jurisdiction of Irish courts or the enforceability of Irish orders.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court conducted a comprehensive welfare assessment focusing on the children’s best interests under constitutional and statutory provisions, including Article 42A of the Constitution and section 31 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 (as amended). It gave significant weight to the ascertainable views of the children, who expressed a strong preference to remain together as siblings and to continue living in Rome with both parents accessible.

The court critically evaluated the expert psychological report of Dr. Moane, noting disagreement with several of her conclusions, particularly regarding the father’s parenting role and the mother’s alleged lack of control and legal rights in Italy. The court found both parents capable and committed, emphasizing the importance of stability, continuity, and the existing successful shared parenting arrangement.

It acknowledged the mother’s desire to relocate to Denmark and the research she conducted but found that the move would be disruptive and contrary to the children’s welfare at this stage. The court also considered the practical difficulties and costs associated with relocation and access, the children’s educational and social integration in Rome, and the father’s prospects for continued employment in Italy.

The court addressed the issue of diplomatic immunity, noting that the Italian courts lacked jurisdiction due to the father’s immunity, but that such immunity could be waived by the relevant authorities if necessary. It confirmed that Irish courts retain jurisdiction over the family law matters and that Irish court orders are enforceable in Italy and Denmark under applicable international conventions.

Balancing the rights of the parties, including freedom of movement and family life under EU treaties and the European Convention on Human Rights, the court concluded that the paramount consideration is the children’s welfare. It found that relocation to Denmark is not in the children’s best interests at this time given the potential disruption and reduced meaningful contact with the father.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the mother’s application to relocate the children from Rome, Italy to Denmark.

As a result, the children will remain in Rome under the existing joint guardianship and shared parenting arrangement, with a week on, week off access schedule. The court emphasized the importance of continuing therapeutic support and parental cooperation to maintain the children’s welfare and stability.

No new legal precedent was established; the decision reaffirms established principles that the welfare and ascertainable views of the children are paramount in relocation cases, and that the court will carefully balance parental rights and practical considerations in such matters.