Hardiman J refered to "a presumption that where the constitutional family exists and is discharging its functions as such and the parents have not for physical or moral reasons failed in their duty towards their children, their decisions should not be overridden by the State or in particular by the courts in the absence of a jurisdiction conferred by statute". Read full judgement HERE.
ENFORCEMENT OF CUSTODY ORDERS ACT, 1991 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 15 OF THE HAGUE CONVENTIONC. (R.) v. S. (I.)  IEHC 86 (11 November 2003)
This is an application pursuant to s.15 of the Child Abduction and Enforcement of Custody Orders Act, 1991 for a declaration pursuant to Article 15 of the Hague Convention that the removal of the child, the subject matter of the proceedings ("the Child") from the State and his retention outside the State was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. A further declaration was sought that this State was the place of habitual residence of the Child at the date of his removal from the State. At the hearing before me it was conceded on behalf of the respondent that the Child was habitually resident in the State prior to his removal from the State.
Read Judgement HERE
"It is apparent from the order for reference that, under Irish law, the natural father of children does not, by operation of law, have rights of custody. Moreover, the fact that unmarried parents have cohabited and that the father has been actively engaged in the upbringing of the child does not, by itself, give such rights to the father".
Read Judgement HERE.