The Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court's decision that a young girl taken to Ireland by her mother should be returned to the European Union country where she previously resided.
The pre-teen child, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was brought by her mother to Ireland last year.
However, the child's father claimed that the child was taken to Ireland without his consent, and he made an application under The Hague Agreement, the international agreement governing child abduction, for her return.
The court heard that the child's parents divorced some years ago, and that the parents had joint custody of the girl, but she has primarily lived with her mother.
The child's mother opposed the father's application and argued that she and her daughter had moved or had resettled in Ireland, having exercised their rights under the EU free movement rights.
The mother also claimed that the father had consented to the move.
He denied that claim but accepted that he had initially believed she had gone to Ireland for the summer holidays.
Earlier this year the High Court ruled in the father's favour and directed that the girl be returned to the country the child's habitual residence.
The mother appealed that decision to the CoA on grounds including that the High Court hearing was unfair, unconstitutional, after that court had refused to adjournment the case to allow for a second interview of the child.
The mother had raised objections over a report, compiled as part of the High Court hearing, by an expert who interviewed the child.
In the report the expert said that answers to questions put to the child "could not be regarded as reliably reflecting her own wishes, feelings and lived experiences."
The expert said the child was shy and did not have a sufficient command of English to engage fully in the assessment by the expert.
The expert added that the child had admitted being prepared for the interview, was told what to say by her mother and a woman believed to be the child's cousin and gave rehearsed answers to open questions.
A second interview should have been conducted with an interpreter present, in was argued.
The adjournment was also sought so that an application could be made to cross-examine the child's father and the expert.
In its judgement the three judge CoA, compromised of Mr Justice Donald Binchy, Ms Justice Teresa Pilkington and Mr Justice Senan Allen dismissed all grounds of the mother's appeal.
The court also declined to refer the action to the Courts of Justice of the European Union.
No questions regarding the validity or interpretation of any act of the institutional bodies, offices or agencies of the Union were raised in the case, the judge said.
Giving the court's decision Mr Justice Allen said the mother had failed to show that the judge had erred in the exercise of her discretion to adjourn the case. The mother had been given every opportunity to answer the case that the child had been abducted.
The Judge said the mother had argued that the refusal to grant the adjournment breached her rights under the Charter of the European Union to an effect remedy and a fair trial.
However, the judge said that "in focusing on her own rights, the mother has lost sight of the nature and object of the proceedings. The judge added that the assessment of the child was done to give the child a genuine and effective opportunity to express her own views.
The difficulty present by the child's answers to the expert was the girl's views were not her own and could not be relied on, the judge said.
In the circumstances the appeal had to be dismissed and the order directing the child's return affirmed.
