The District Court refused an application by the Health Service Executive (HSE) to place two children outside Ireland while they were under interim care orders. The judge held that the court could not approve such a placement while the children were temporarily under its protection under section 17 of the Child Care Act 1991.
The contested application was heard on 5 September 2008. The HSE called a social worker, and the respondent parents also gave evidence. The judgment was dated 25 September 2008.
The case followed concerns about the children’s school attendance. The National Educational Welfare Board told the social work department on 22 May 2008 that Child 2, then aged nine, had not returned to school since 7 January. An emergency care order application followed on 6 June, and the court granted interim care orders on 13 June.
The HSE sought to place the children with their paternal aunt and her family in Country 1. The judge found the HSE had not adequately addressed the children’s educational needs or shown why temporary foster care in Ireland had not been considered. The court also heard on cross-examination that the aunt’s son was alleged to have taken cocaine and ecstasy. The cocaine allegation was denied; it was accepted that he had taken two ecstasy tablets about nine months earlier. The judge said the court had not been given evidence of a full relative foster care assessment following that information.
The judgment noted that both parents had stopped taking drugs from July 2008, after tackling addiction over the summer. It also considered the children’s identity, religious and educational rights, and whether their relationship with the aunt was longstanding. The judge said the evidence did not establish an active relationship before June 2008.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Western Health Board v KM, the judge said overseas placements require considerable caution. The judgment interpreted that authority as requiring a full care order before the District Court could consider this type of placement. Because the children were subject only to interim care orders, the court concluded it could not consider the HSE’s request and refused the section 47 application.
The ruling refused this application. The judgment does not record a decision ending the interim care orders or determine the children’s longer-term placement.