The High Court has ordered the Child and Family Agency (CFA) to pay the costs of two guardians ad litem who brought motions after special care orders for two children were not put into effect because no beds were available. The court did not decide whether the CFA was in contempt. It said that issue had not been established and the motions were not heard or determined.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Jordan on 4 July 2024, concerned two separate proceedings involving children identified as H. and K. The CFA had obtained special care orders for both on 8 February 2024, but neither child had a bed at that time. Their guardians later issued motions seeking, among other relief, to have the Agency held in contempt.
The motions did not proceed to a hearing on their substance. H. entered Crannóg Nua late on 19 April, after the CFA said a bed would be available and that medical detoxification would be required. K. was placed in special care before his guardian discontinued the motion. The court treated each pair of motions as one for the purpose of deciding costs.
The CFA argued that the motions’ outcome had gone its way and said they were substantively bound to fail. The judge rejected that characterisation. He said the guardians’ objective was to secure beds for the children, and that the motions became redundant when the beds were provided. Whether the motions would have succeeded at a hearing remained unresolved; the court said any claim that they were bound to fail was untested.
The court also accepted sworn evidence from the CFA that the contempt motions played no role in allocating the beds. It did not find that the motions caused the placements. The judgment noted that the CFA had not given effect to the orders while the children’s situations deteriorated, and that no affidavit had been filed by the Agency on the substantive issue in these proceedings.
The judge found that the guardians acted properly and professionally in pursuing a remedy they considered worthwhile for the children. He held they were entitled to bring the motions and should not face costs for doing so. The court refused the CFA’s requests for costs against the guardians and instead ordered costs in favour of each guardian. Those costs are to be adjudicated if the parties cannot agree.
The judgment addresses the costs dispute only. It makes no formal finding of contempt and does not determine the merits of the motions.