Recherche de décisions

The parents, an Israeli woman (holding Israeli, British and Irish citizenship) and an Irish Catholic man (citizen and resident of Ireland), met in Israel in 2014 and subsequently relocated together to Dublin, Ireland. They married in September 2017 and had a child, born in Dublin, in September 2020.

In late 2023, the parents' relationship broke down. In October 2023, the mother traveled to England with the child and informed the father she did not intend to return. The father initiated proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention before the Family Court in England. A judgment was rendered on 8 November 2023 incorporating the parties' agreed undertakings, pursuant to which the mother voluntarily agreed to return the child to Ireland by 15 November 2023.

Following the return, the mother petitioned the court in County Kerry, Ireland, for permission to relocate to England with the child. On 30 April 2025, the Irish court rejected the relocation petition, granted judicial separation, established joint custody in favor of both parents, determined visitation arrangements, and expressly prohibited the mother from permanently relocating the child outside Irish jurisdiction.

The parties subsequently agreed, by consent order of the Irish court, that the mother would travel to England with the child on a short trip. On 21 June 2025, the mother flew with the child to England but, instead of returning to Ireland on 28 June 2025 as ordered, flew with the child to Israel. 

The mother argued before the Family Court (First Instance) that: (1) the father's extreme bad faith in breaching the return conditions from England barred his petition; (2) the child's habitual residence was in England, not Ireland; and (3) Article 13(1)(b) applied as returning the child to Ireland would expose her to the severe antisemitic atmosphere prevailing there, to cultural and religious isolation, and to an intolerable situation owing to her Jewish identity.

The first instance court (Family Court, Petah Tikva, Hon. Senior Judge R. Makayes, FC 66078-07-25, 19 October 2025) ordered the return of the child to Ireland but imposed conditions on the return, including that the child be returned to Dublin (not to Kenmare where the parties had last resided), enrolled in a non-denominational school, and that the mother be permitted to travel to England with the child three times per year during Jewish holidays. Financial guarantees were also required from both parties.

Both parties appealed to the District Court.

Return to Ireland ordered, with adjusted conditions. The mother's appeal was dismissed, and the father's appeal accepted in part.

The District Court upheld the first instance decision ordering the return of the child to Ireland. It confirmed that the Child's habitual residence was Ireland and that her removal to Israel was wrongful. With respect to the conditions of return, the Court set aside the requirement that the child be returned specifically to Dublin (rather than to the Kenmare area where the parties had resided pursuant to the Irish court's orders), while affirming the condition that the child attend a non-denominational educational institution. The Court further ordered the father to secure suitable housing for the mother and child for a period of one year and to obtain written confirmation from the Irish authorities that no criminal proceedings would be initiated against the mother. 

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

The Court found, without real dispute (the mother's counsel withdrew the argument at the appellate hearing), that Ireland was the child's habitual residence. The child was born in Dublin, had lived in Ireland since birth, attended kindergarten there, received medical care there, and the parties were subject to binding Irish court orders establishing joint custody and prohibiting relocation. The Court reaffirmed that habitual residence is a factual concept reflecting continuous reality and the parents' joint intentions, and that the Irish court's custody determination was itself indicative of habitual residence.

Undertakings

The Court rejected the mother's argument that the father's breach of the return conditions established by the English court in November 2023 deprived him of the right to petition for return or negated the applicability of the Convention. A breach of undertakings between the parties, even if proven, does not entitle the other parent to abduct the child. The Court further noted that the mother herself had breached her own undertakings by flying to Israel rather than returning to Ireland on 28 June 2025 as ordered. The Court declined to resolve the dispute as to which party bore greater fault for non-compliance, holding that such an inquiry falls outside the scope of the 1980 Hague Convention proceedings. It also cautioned that isolated statements in Israeli case law regarding bad faith must not be over-extended beyond their specific factual contexts.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

The Court upheld the rejection of the Article 13(1)(b) exception to return. It reaffirmed that the exception must be construed narrowly, applied only in extreme and exceptional cases, and required clear and compelling evidence of a specific risk of grave physical or psychological harm to the particular child arising from the return to the country of habitual residence. The burden of proof rests on the abducting parent and is a heavy one.

The mother's principal argument was that the antisemitic atmosphere in Ireland, exacerbated since the events of October 2023, would place the child at grave risk. The Court acknowledged that antisemitism exists in Ireland and has intensified since October 2023, and noted historical evidence of antisemitic incidents in Irish public life. However, it found that the evidence fell far short of the standard required under Article 13(1)(b). The court noted that neither the mother nor the child had ever personally experienced any antisemitic incident in Ireland during the decade the family lived there. Furthermore, the Mother had herself sought to relocate to England, a country with comparable levels of antisemitism, which undermined her claim that the risk in Ireland was intolerable. Finally, the closure of the Israeli Embassy in Ireland in December 2024 reflected political tensions between the two governments regarding the Gaza conflict rather than personal danger to Jews living in Ireland.

The Court further held that acceptance of generalised antisemitism as a basis for the Article 13(1)(b) exception would create serious legal and policy consequences, effectively opening the door to child abductions from numerous countries based on similar claims, rendering Israeli commitments under the Convention meaningless, and creating legal chaos. The Court emphasised, consistent with both Israeli and comparative case law, that the assessment must focus on the specific risk to the individual child, not on the general geopolitical or security situation in the country of return.

The Court also rejected the argument that the risk of the child attending a Catholic school or growing up in a predominantly Catholic environment in County Kerry constituted grave risk within the meaning of the Convention. It noted that the parties had agreed on the enrollment of the child in a non-denominational school and that such schools exist in the Kenmare area.

Issues Relating to Return

The Court confirmed the jurisdiction of courts adjudicating under the 1980 Convention to impose undertakings as conditions to return as temporary interim relief, pending determination by the competent court in the country of habitual residence. 

However, the Court partially modified the first instance's conditions, including setting aside the direction that the Child be returned to Dublin rather than Kenmare, holding that the first instance court had exceeded its jurisdiction by overriding prior orders of the Irish court requiring the parties to reside in the Kenmare area. A court adjudicating a 1980 Convention petition may not disregard binding rulings of the competent local court in the child's country of habitual residence.

The Court also affirmed the condition requiring enrollment in a non-denominational school, consistent with both parties' undertakings and the need to respect the Child's religious identity, subject to the Irish court's future rulings.

Post judgment note: The mother failed to deposit her 15,000. Euro, which reduced the father's deposit accordingly. The mother then failed to produce the child on the court ordered date and fled within Israel to an undisclosed location. Child was located and returned to father with police assistance. Father returned to Ireland with the child. Mother did not return.