L.O v M.O (Unapproved)

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION 1980

����������������������������������������������������������������������� Neutral Citation Number [2024] IECA 39

             The trip occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The family had arranged to stay with the children's maternal grandmother who resides in this jurisdiction. On 11 th January 2022 the mother contracted COVID-19.� That event precluded the family's scheduled return to Australia as the mother was unable to meet the re-entry and vaccination requirements imposed by the Australian government in respect of COVID-19 travel.� The flights were rescheduled by the mother for the entire family to return on 22 nd March 2022.�

             �In the course of her judgment, the judge addressed the issue of� habitual residence and the burden of proof, considering authorities such as Mercredi v. Chaffe (Case C-497/10 PPU) [2010] E.C.R. 1-14309 and also the decisions of this Court in A.K. v U.S. [2022] IECA 65 and Hampshire County Council v. CE and NE [2020] IECA 100 . She observed at 3.7:

             �On the burden of proof, citing K v. J [2012] IEHC 234 (a decision of Finlay Geoghegan J.), the trial judge observed at 3.8 that the latter case had "confirmed that the onus in that case was on the respondent who sought, as does this Respondent, to show that there has been a change in habitual residence. The evidential burden must be on the Respondent as it is she who seeks to prove that the family's habitual residence changed, from the country in which they lived all their lives until 2021, to Ireland."