The High Court has allowed a father to pursue a limited challenge to the procedures used before a Circuit Court made orders governing major aspects of his adult son’s care, welfare and finances.
The son, who is non-verbal and has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, had previously been declared to lack capacity. In October 2025, the Circuit Court appointed his mother as decision-making representative for specified matters including finances, medical and dental care, medication, accommodation, respite and day-to-day care. The order also reduced the father’s overnight contact to one night per week.
The father, acting without a lawyer, sought judicial review. His application was filed on March 23, 2026, two months after the normal three-month deadline had expired.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons granted an extension of time for a limited group of grounds. The court noted that the formal Circuit Court order was not drawn up until February 13, 2026 and that the father said he received a certified copy four days later. That wording was important to assessing whether the statutory test for proceeding without the adult son being present had been properly applied.
The High Court found arguable grounds for questioning whether adequate procedures had been used to allow the adult son to participate or to have his will and preferences placed before the Circuit Court. A solicitor appointed during the proceedings had investigated the circumstances and recommended which parent should become decision-making representative, but his report did not record meeting, observing or attempting to communicate directly with the son.
Leave was therefore granted on four grounds concerning participation, representation and related service issues. This does not mean those complaints have been proved; they will be determined at the full judicial review hearing.
The court refused leave on separate arguments challenging the Circuit Court’s power to alter an earlier consent arrangement, make welfare arrangements for an adult, and on a standalone complaint about notice to the father. The case was listed to return on July 21, 2026.