Skip to main content

Irish Supreme Court judgment on Hague Convention and adoption in England.

The link is to the judgment of the Irish Supreme Court on matters relating to the Hague Convention and adoption.

A number of parents have won legal cases in Ireland which prevented their children being returned to England and placed in care on the basis that this would lead to adoption.

This case was an interesting one because the children were not actually in care or even subject to a care order, but that care proceedings were "pending". (Viz an application had been made to court.)

The first test in international public family law is one as to which country has jurisdiction. This is based on "habitual residence". It is now clearly the case that if court proceedings have started in England then the habitual residence is accepted as being in England even if the family have moved to Ireland.

The case has also looked at the question as to whether non-Irish citizens have Irish Constitutional Rights, but without resolving the issue in any way.

The judgment is a long and interesting one that is worth reading for anyone interested in this issue. Where it is wrong is that it sees the Irish and English law as being on the same spectrum. I believe in the long term that it will be recognised both that this is not the case and also that the trend in law has been damaging for children. The trend in law actually has been resisted for millennia and exists in the bible (Job 24:9). There is today as there has been in the past a demand for children from adoptive parents. There is a tendency for the system to respond to that demand by providing children from economically or politically weaker families.

If this all happens in secret then it tends to succeed without challenge, but if it is subject to proper public scrutiny then it is resisted.

What is clear about judicial systems and secrecy is that secrecy undermines the rule of law. At time it may be arguable that the secrecy is more important than the rule of law. However, if that is not the case then secrecy is to be avoided.

My advice to parents facing care proceedings is to follow the law. The law does not prevent people from emigrating when there are no proceedings. People considering emigrating to Ireland need to consider the financial issues. Since the financial crisis obtaining benefits in Ireland has been very difficult. Hence it is only those people with adequate resources that can do this.

Comments

moira said…
I spoke to someone who has acted as an expert witness.That person said she had to rescue a couple of mothers as they were being victimised by social services.(This is what happened to me).He also said that SS just take children here almost immediately and dont keep families together as they falsely assure people. He also thanked me for telling him about Ireland in case he needed to advise parents. I have friends who have worked with SS and have not a good word about them. ie bullies or pick on vulnerable people instead of the real abusers.

You are saying if there are care proceedings then families are stuck here. That benefits are hard to get in Ireland so that makes it difficult then for a single mother to escape the English SS if they have decided to victimise her??
Jake Maverick said…
follow the law? how is that even possible? kept secret, can not be indpenedently verified and endlessly contradictory from what I can gather....
as far as i can tell I kept everyhting legal...suspect it may have been technically legal to defend oneself when yob mother******* attacks you, although I chose not to....what act of pariament is it that made it legal for psychopaths that refuse to confirm or deny if they know who they are to torture me into making me talk to them about thing sthey already knew about?

http://news.yahoo.com/venezuelas-chavez-did-u-latin-american-leaders-cancer-200524479.html

so even statemen not immune to these attacks....so have you had yourself checked recently John or are you the new Shami...? my best guess is that freaking immune system not let me die from it yet....
Jake Maverick said…
if you give them ANY information knowing full well they're going to sell it on to private companies (like car 'accident') then under joint enterprise law you can prosecuted for what they did, although they're immune from prosecution....that is the law isn't it John? if you cpitulate (they might sometimes call it cooperate) when they break into yur home, attack you murder/ abduct your kids and you DON'Tdefend yourself then under joint enterprise law you are one of the filthy terrorists because you had a back bone....that is the law, isntit John? here's the thing though, when they sell your private info to that guy to come around and board up your window (because they smashed it up) and turn couple of undred pounds worth of dmage into sevral thousand and 'reaplce' the door necessitating even more work because then you have to smash it out again and replace (why would you let them psychos have a key to your home?)---is it legal to batter that twat? I mean technically private subcontractors aren't potected by Royal charter are they? 'cept they do get away scot free ith boiling two month old babies alive.....
just talking is enough these days...
http://jakemaverick.blogspot.com/
presumably no plaguerism when the Lib Dems blatntly rip of my material also, never ecen a thank you of Nick for that one either....not even sure that I'm happy that he obviously found the time to read it or not!
wonder which random bits gonna get snipped out of that then?
Jake Maverick said…
if you pay council tax or any other tax knowing damn well they spend tht money on bullets/ bombs then YOU are guilty of murdering Jean Charles De Menenzes, all those children/ foreigners.... they'r still children reagrdless of colour of their skin...
if i ever pay any tax again knowing full well wher itg oes then technically that would make me a prostitute, which is illegal, allegedly on this part of the planet...
but here's the thing though, if i booked a prostitute via a server in Holland for exxample, or soemwhere else where what is illegal and what iscriminal are more closely alligned, as long as entire transaction was done on their server it would make it legal here? or does that only apply to companies that the govt approves of....?
Jake Maverick said…
um, they got the wrong Brown surely?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fugitive-fraudster-brown-arrested-204005546.html

and illegally arrested to....? point being law doesn't apply when it comes to the British state....how could he be arrested there with no extradition treaty...? so just abducted then...
Jake Maverick said…
comply with the law, eh? pot, kettle John...

http://www.legitgov.org/Britain-brags-about-war-Iran

and getting beyond ridiculuss now..

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/01/05/new-law-requires-photo-id-to-buy-drain-cleaner/

when is that coming here?
so when a law is passed to go around killing all the ginger people you'll be advising people to do that will you John....?

i dare you to publish any of that...
Jake Maverick said…
yet more legalisation of criminal behaviour....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083768/Secret-justice-How-Cameron-Clegg-vowed-hand-liberties-instead-planning-illiberal-changes-justice-system.html

and bit of possible freindly fire here, keep forgetting that WordPress for soem reason doesn't like the pointy brackets.....but that doesn't explain all the censorship!

who would notice or even care when i get disappeared again....? only matter of time....they say a sign of madness is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome....but i've already tried everything accept fight....so last one to try! i'll probably make the news one day.....
Jake Maverick said…
financial issues? benefits? they can completely cut you off on a whim in UK, with no proceedings of any kind whatsoever....you can't even take them to court over it, Courts won't allow that! an dyou can't get a bank account if you're homeless and without multiple forms of state snactioned ID.....been in this situation for over six years now! but apparently Ireland is a safer place to be....shame that man's blog gone quiet though! lost track/ contact with so many other TIs as well over the years....wonder what ahs happened to them? suspect i'm the only one who even cares....
Jake Maverick said…
must follow the law.....

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2012/01/the_nuremberg_code_set_up_to_protect_the_human_subjects_of_research_is_being_routinely_ignored_.html
Jake Maverick said…
was there even a judge or jury involved in htis one....?

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/222335.html

(yes i know that domain likely to set off some larms....)
Jake Maverick said…
heard a rumour some MPs 'assistant' is going to try and 'sue' Met poolice for beating her or her up, or soemthing....but starngely every link i click is already dead? any comment there?

and then there was that legal appeal court hearing where now it is apparently legal to keep people prisoner against their will, en when there is a specific law (alegedly) making that illegal.....presumably assaulting and abducting peple to when they refuse/ defend themselves.....do you know what side you're on John? i need potection, drop me aline i might have a business proposal for you....

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men:

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…