Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
             The child previously travelled to Ireland for access visits with the respondent in 2024 and again in February 2025, on each occasion being returned to Poland at the conclusion of those visits. Prior to the events giving rise to this application, she attended school in Poland.
             In the summer of 2025, the child again travelled to Ireland for an agreed access visit with the respondent, commencing during her school summer holidays on 1 st July 2025. The applicant has indicated that the initially agreed return date was 31 st July 2025, although he accepts that he subsequently consented to an extension of the visit until 21 st August 2025.
             When the extended return date arrived, the respondent declined to return the child to Poland. Shortly thereafter, the applicant made an application through the Polish Central Authority seeking the child's return. The present proceedings were commenced on 14 th October 2025 and heard by me on 19 th December 2025 and 22 nd January 2026. In addition, both parties have instituted proceedings before a District Court in Poland concerning the child's future care, which proceedings remain ongoing. 
             Article 13 of the Hague Convention, I note, provides as follows:
         I emphasise that these proceedings do not determine custody, guardianship, or long-term welfare arrangements. My task is confined to whether an order for immediate return can safely be made
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.