The High Court dismissed a foster mother’s judicial review challenge concerning the transfer of a child from her care to prospective adoptive parents, ruling that the application was brought outside the three-month time limit and refusing an extension.
In a judgment delivered on 21 December 2018, Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the transfer took place in mid-April 2018, while the application for leave to seek judicial review was not moved until mid-September. The foster mother had legal advice during the events in question and had set out her concerns in correspondence in March and April, the judge said. Pursuing non-legal complaints did not justify the delay. The court therefore found the proceedings inadmissible.
The foster mother had alleged that the Child and Family Agency’s processes were unlawful, including because the report sent to the Adoption Authority lacked an up-to-date medical assessment and did not adequately address the child’s foster care and attachments. She also said her request to be considered as an adoptive parent was not properly considered. These were allegations; the judge said he had formed no view on whether the report and supporting documents were flawed.
The foster mother had abandoned requests for substantive orders that could undo the placement. She and the prospective adoptive parents had also entered an agreement under which she would not seek to adopt the child, delay or interfere with the adoption process, or seek custody. All parties before the court agreed that the child should remain with the prospective adoptive parents. The judge said the evidence, including reports before the court, indicated that the child was thriving in their care.
Although declining to rule on whether the adoption report was deficient, the judge explained that such a finding could call into question the Adoption Authority’s March 2018 authorisation of the placement. The Authority was not a party to the case, and the prospective adoptive parents had effectively been released from it. The court said it would be inappropriate to grant relief suggesting the Authority’s decision was invalid without hearing from it. It also declined to make declarations about the historic events, finding that they would serve no useful purpose and might harm the child’s interests by casting a shadow over the placement.
The judge refused a late application to expand the case to include complaints about earlier medical treatment. It would have significantly changed the case and required an adjournment for the Agency to respond. The judicial review was dismissed.