The High Court has dismissed a grandfather’s judicial review challenge to a care order for his grandson and the child’s placement with foster carers, finding that he had no legal interest to bring the proceedings.
Mr Justice Hedigan delivered judgment on 8 February 2011. The applicant, identified as R.D., sought to quash a District Court care order and two later reviews, and a declaration that the Health Service Executive’s placement of the child with T and D was unlawful.
The child was born in October 2007 with traces of heroin in his system, which the judgment attributed to his mother’s heroin use during pregnancy. The HSE became involved, and the child was initially cared for by T, the sister of his mother’s partner. After DNA testing ruled out that partner as the child’s father, the HSE sought a care order. The District Court granted the order on 18 November 2008, transferring parental rights to the HSE under section 18 of the Childcare Act 1991.
The applicant and his wife had sought guardianship and access, and wanted to care for the child. The judgment records that the District Judge knew of their interest but did not hear them during the care-order application. The grandfather argued that he had a material interest because the child’s mother wanted them to care for the child and they were being assessed as possible relative foster carers.
The judge held that quashing the care order or declaring the placement unlawful could not transfer custody or guardianship to the applicant. His good intentions and interest in the child did not give him the legal standing required. That finding disposed of the case.
The judge also considered the substance of the challenges. He said the District Court order was valid on its face and that the applicant and his wife had no right to attend the in-camera childcare hearing. He found there was ample evidence before the District Judge, who knew the applicant’s position, and concluded judicial review would not lie in any event.
As to the placement, the judge said the HSE’s initial arrangement arose in an urgent situation and that its continuation after the care order was within the HSE’s power under section 36(1)(d). A challenge to the original placement was outside judicial review time limits and would not address the child’s present situation.
The judge noted that the HSE said the child was safe, well cared for and happy, while the applicant had raised concerns. He said the applicant could apply to the District Court under section 47 of the Act for directions or orders. He made no order for costs, saying one would not help restore relations.