Child released from custody of Child and Family Agency and returned to parents

Child care - Family law – European law - five High Court actions - application to set aside an order recognising EU family law orders, three judicial reviews and a habeas corpus application - parents and their three year old child – child born in a EU member state - unstable relationship - argumentative and violent incidents - assault on the mother - social workers – parents moved to Ireland out of a fear and mistrust of the English care system - care order in relation to the child sought - inability to assess the welfare of the child, due to the failure of the parents to engage with them - nterim care order in respect of the child, providing that he be placed in the care of Bedford, and made a further order providing that the child be delivered into care – parents not represented - family moved into a boat in a coastal location in Ireland - emergency care order was applied for in Cork District Court - granted a short order – permit the preparation of a defence – District Court held that the child’s habitual residence was in the UK and that the Irish court had no jurisdiction save for protective measures – application to have English order recognised – leave to judicial review granted – stay of English orders – council required the written order - second collection order was made – informed that enforcement would require a motion – stay not extended – interim care order extended - habeas corpus proceedings seeking the release of the child - further judicial review primarily challenging the proposed removal of the child from the State and also in a third judicial review challenging the order extending the interim care order – whether the court has jurisdiction to set aside the order of Barrett J. recognising the English orders or can it only proceed by way of “appeal” under the Council regulation 2201/2003 - jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte order is a rule of the national legal system, which can be applied to EU law rights and procedures subject to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness - set aside application or by way of “appeal” under the Council regulation - to whom is the “appeal” from a High Court order under 33 of the Council regulation? - what the regulation calls an “appeal” is more akin in practice to an application to the court on notice to set aside its own order - does the enforcement of an EU order require prior express recognition? - appropriate procedure therefore would be either set aside the order of Barrett J. coupled with an order for non-recognition, or an appeal (i.e., a rehearing) under the regulation, without prejudice to the application to set aside – should the order of the High Court recognising the English orders be set aside – enforceability - grounds for non-recognition - lack of possibility of a stay – Court setting aside the order so the question of staying any element of its enforcement does not arise – whether the proposed return of the child is unlawful in the absence of an order of the English court expressly requiring return – change in circumstances - English court has not expressly ordered that the child be relocated from Ireland to England, nor has such an order been made enforceable here - proposed return of the child to England without further order is and was unlawful - best interests of the child - abuse of rights by reason of a proposal to remove the child from the country without an inter partes hearing - attempting to remove the child from the jurisdiction at minimal notice without having any prior form of inter partes hearing - reasonable opportunity for the removal to be challenged – validity of the care orders not dependent on the English orders – jurisdiction of the agency to bring the interim care proceedings – whether the agency improperly acted as an agent or vehicle for the council – availability of appeal - iven the 28 day nature of the orders it is not clear whether that remedy could have been effectively exercised – arguments go to legality – whether the first judicial review is moot – jurisdictional grounds – whether finding of habitual residence should be quashed due to breach of fair procedures – comments by the judge - sarcastic and hostile tone of her interventions – justice must be seen to be done - Judge’s conduct of the proceedings was violative of rudimentary principles of fair procedures – further District Court orders fall - failure to comport with the appropriate legal test - proportionality and evidential basis for the order - weighing of the proportionality of the measure - risk required is an immediate threat to the welfare of the child - quashed by reason of its vagueness and lack of reasons - release under Article 40.4 must be automatic where the order justifying the detention is quashed – Court refuses to remit the case to the District Court.