G v B (Section 32, access, best interests of the child) (Approved)

      A motion to vary current arrangements was issued by the Applicant in May 2024.� I have had the benefit of the following evidence in this application:

(C)   The oral evidence of Professor Sheehan, inter alia, proving the aforementioned reports;

(b)    I have considered the first report of Professor Sheehan and it is not entirely clear to me from this report that the assessor completed this report and made the recommendations therein on the basis that C would be moving to live and work in Ireland.� It was clearly known and understood that a property was being acquired in Ireland but it is not clear that a full movement of habitual residence and place of employment was envisaged.� Such full movement has now occurred.

      Professor Sheehan's evidence supported the desirability of both parents being involved in all aspects of the children's lives and that mid-week access facilitates an involvement by the children's father in school related activities.

  While this confusion and instability are matters which must be assiduously addressed by the children's parents, it is important that the very considerable degree of agreement between C and D in relation to the arrangements for the children not be overlooked.� In relation to the recommendations of Professor Sheehan in his second report (which are from (a) to (l)), only (a) and (c) were in contention, the former being the care schedule during the school term and the latter being the need for therapeutic interventions for the younger child.�