The High Court has dismissed an application for leave to seek judicial review of care orders concerning a woman’s eldest daughter, finding the proceedings were brought outside the time limit and that an extension was not justified.
In a judgment delivered on 29 November 2019, Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the case was brought about nine months after the Circuit Court orders the mother appeared to be challenging. Judicial review proceedings were issued on 2 January 2018, while the relevant Circuit Court orders were made in February and March 2017.
The mother’s pleadings formally challenged District Court orders, but she sought in affidavits and oral submissions to redirect the case towards the Circuit Court decisions affirming them. She had not applied to amend her statement of grounds. The judge said only the District Court orders were identified in that statement, and a challenge to those orders was inadmissible after she had exercised her statutory right of appeal to the Circuit Court. He nevertheless considered the delay objection rather than deciding the case on that pleading point.
The orders concerned the eldest daughter. The District Court had made an emergency care order in November 2016, interim care orders and extensions, and a care order under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991 in January 2017. The Circuit Court affirmed the emergency order on 8 February 2017 and the other orders on 7 March 2017. The judgment states that the emergency and interim orders were time-limited and that the section 18 order expired when the daughter turned 18. She had reached adulthood before the judicial review proceedings began.
The mother relied on earlier proceedings issued in July 2017 and said she had prioritised her daughters’ welfare while experiencing distress. The judge found the delay circumstances were not outside her control. He also concluded the case was moot, could provide no practical benefit, and disclosed no arguable ground challenging the Circuit Court orders. He said pursuing the case risked adversely affecting the eldest daughter, who did not wish to participate or be heard.
The judge also found no case was pleaded against the Director of Public Prosecutions. He made no finding on the merits of the mother’s complaints about alleged Garda harassment, but said there was no causal link to the DPP, which had no operational responsibility for An Garda Síochána.
The court dismissed the application for leave, primarily because of delay and its refusal to extend time. It said it would also have dismissed the proceedings because the Circuit Court challenge was not properly pleaded and no case was properly pleaded against the DPP. The court ordered that the identities, names, addresses and dates of birth of the mother and her daughters must not be disclosed.