Judge dismisses application by father seeking return of daughter to Poland

High Court Reporter

A video showing a father climbing into his daughter’s bed while naked gave rise to concerns that the child would face a risk of coming to harm if the High Court ordered her return to Poland under anti-abduction legislation, a judge has said.

Mr Justice Max Barrett this week dismissed the father’s application seeking his daughter’s (7) return to Poland, where he lives. The man brought High Court proceedings when the child’s mother refused to return her from Ireland after an agreed summer holiday last year.

The bedroom incident – which occurred shortly before the child’s arrival in Ireland in July 2025 to stay with her mother – was recorded by a “nanny cam” in the father’s home, and was the subject of submissions in the proceedings.

There was no physical interference in the incident.

The judge was assessing the incident in relation to Article 13 of the Hague Convention, which provides that the court can refuse an application to return a child if such an order would expose the child to “grave risk of physical or psychological harm, or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation”.

The man brought the proceedings under the provisions of the Hague Convention and other anti-abduction legislation.

The child had travelled from her father’s home in Poland to Ireland on previous access visits.

In a judgment published on Friday, Mr Justice Barrett said his role was to determine if it was safe to make an order for the immediate return of the child.

The judge said concerns of a risk to the child arose from an incident captured on a “nanny cam” in the father’s house, a short time before the child came to Ireland. The father was seen entering the child’s bed naked while she slept. He lay there for some time, then got up and left, the judge noted.

“This incident is one which, by reason of its nature and context, raises concerns regarding personal boundaries, judgment, and the child’s safety,” the judge said.

The father sought to explain the incident by submitting that he had risen early, did not “appreciate” what he was doing, and did not interfere with the child.

The judge said he accepted that there was no physical interference, but beyond this, said he could not accept the father’s explanation.

“It is difficult to accept that a man could move about his home, be sufficiently aware of his surroundings to walk safely through that home and enter his daughter’s bedroom and bed, yet at the same time is not fully aware of his actions or their nature,” he said.

The judge said the father’s explanation and characterisation of the incident did not provide a reliable basis upon which he could be “satisfied that the risk thereby disclosed [had] been adequately understood, addressed, or contained”.

The judge said that the conduct “departs sufficiently from ordinary parental boundaries as to give rise to a grave risk that the child’s return to Poland would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place her in an intolerable situation”.

For the avoidance of doubt, the judge said he was making no finding that the father had committed a criminal offence. He said he was assessing the incident only by reference to provisions of the Hague Convention.

Counsel for the father contended at the hearing of the action that such conduct “would be considered culturally unobjectionable or non-concerning in Poland”, the judge noted. There was no evidence advanced to support this submission, the judge said.

The judge said there was no reliable basis on which he could be satisfied that a similar incident would not occur in the event of the child’s return to Poland.

The judge also noted that the child did not want to return to Poland.

He dismissed the application.