Judge correctly assessed evidence of the views of the children about returning to live in England

Child law – child abduction – Hague Convention – High Court ordered that two children be returned to the jurisdiction of England and Wales – their place of habitual residence - appeal is a limited one relating to the issue of jurisdiction – background facts – children removed without their father’s consent – proceedings - not contested that the children were each habitually resident in England, that there were family law proceedings in being before the local English courts and that the father did not consent to the removal of the children to Ireland - father had established the wrongful removal of the children within the meaning of Article 12 of the Convention – alleged grave risk – father’s drinking - views of the children – decision of the High Court - legal test for grave risk - trial judge concluded that the mother had failed to show that the English courts could not manage the relevant situation or that the father would not abide by any of the orders made by the relevant English court – notice of appeal – respondent’s notice - emphasised the desire of the children to remain with her in the house where she says they have settled in Ireland and integrated well into the local community - respondent objected to the introduction of new facts - insofar as the Notice of Appeal raises issues which were not before the High Court, they cannot form grounds of appeal - mother must establish that there is a grave risk that the return of the children would expose them to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation - High Court was correct in concluding that the mother has failed to discharge the evidential burden which rests on her - no evidence whatsoever to suggest that that court is not in a position to properly safeguard the welfare and rights of the children - principles to be applied by a court in considering an application to return a child to the state of its habitual residence where defences under Article 13 of the Convention are raised by the abducting parent to resist the order for return - satisfied that the trial judge was correct to classify the views of the boy as falling short of an objection to a return within the meaning of Article 13 - trial judge assessed the totality of the evidence concerning the views of the daughter – trial judge had regard to all matters to which she ought to have had regard and did not take account of any irrelevant matters – trial judge properly weighed the policy of the Convention in favour of the prompt return of children to the state of their habitual residence - Court correctly held that issues concerning the welfare of the children are matters for the local English courts and that those courts are both able and are best placed to deal with any such issues – appeal dismissed