The District Court ordered the Health Service Executive (HSE) to give the guardian ad litem (GAL) for Child 1 access to records about interactions between Child 2 and the mother that gave rise, or may have given rise, to child protection or welfare concerns. The order allows access for the GAL’s work in ongoing care proceedings concerning Child 1; it does not decide whether Child 1 should remain in care.
The judgment, dated 28 May 2013, records that the HSE’s application for a care order under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991 had not yet been heard. Child 1 had remained in HSE care under an interim care order since February 2012. The latest extension was due to expire on 18 June 2013.
The GAL sought access to HSE files concerning Child 2, Child 1’s half-sibling. The application also sought an alternative discovery order, but the GAL said she would pursue that only if the section 47 application failed. At the hearing, she indicated that the request could be limited to child protection and welfare material involving the mother.
The GAL submitted that she needed the records to assess discrepancies between the mother’s accounts to professionals and evidence she had given in the Circuit Court. The mother denied the allegations of physical and sexual abuse described by the GAL. She opposed disclosure, arguing that it would interfere with her and Child 2’s privacy and family life, and that relevant evidence could instead be tested through witnesses and cross-examination. Child 2’s father also objected, citing their privacy and family relationships. The HSE did not oppose the application and relied on a social work report that referred to an incident in 2009 in which the mother admitted striking Child 2 and causing injury.
The court held that section 47 gave it jurisdiction to make an order because Child 1 was in care and information about child protection or welfare concerns involving the mother and another child could be relevant to Child 1’s welfare. It weighed that interest against the privacy and family life rights of Child 2, the mother and Child 2’s father, and concluded that limited disclosure was justified.
The HSE must redact material about matters other than child protection or welfare concerns. The permitted material includes documents relating to interviews with the mother or witnesses to relevant incidents. The court lifted the in camera rule only to allow the HSE to show that information to the GAL. The HSE is to carry out the initial redactions, with any genuine doubt referred to the court.
The order does not authorize onward disclosure to other parties. The GAL, or another party, may apply later for further disclosure. The court also said the parties could address the weight to be given to the records. It stayed the order until close of business the following Tuesday.