The High Court has refused an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings over a Circuit Family Court order appointing a social worker to conduct a review assessment in a family case.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 15 May 2024, Ms Justice Nuala Jackson said the applicant had not shown an arguable legal basis to challenge the Circuit Family Court’s 4 July 2023 order. The application sought to quash the appointment of social worker Ms Maire Louise McGovern under section 32 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964.
The applicant argued that the order was irrational because he believed parental alienation was an issue and wanted a specialist assessor appointed. He also complained about the assessor’s conduct and conclusions. The respondent submitted that the application showed no arguable case and was an attempt to appeal an order with which the applicant disagreed.
Justice Jackson said the applicant’s affidavit did not identify a ground of complaint about the order beyond disagreement with it. She noted there was no evidence before her that the Circuit Family Court had failed to consider the applicant’s arguments, or that the assessor had failed to consider relevant matters. She also said an allegation of parental alienation alone did not require a court to appoint an expert chosen by one party.
The judge distinguished a case cited by the applicant, CG v BG, saying that decision did not support ordering a further assessment solely on one party’s assertion, without sufficient evidence. She also observed that the assessor had not been called to give evidence or cross-examined in the underlying proceedings. In her view, challenging the report and examining the assessor at a hearing, alongside the applicant’s own evidence, appeared to be an effective course available in the first instance.
The High Court accepted that the applicant had sufficient interest and that the application was within time. Justice Jackson also found that it had been made in good faith and concerned an important matter: the welfare of a child. She said the appointment of an experienced and qualified professional appeared reasonable and could not be described as irrational.
The court refused leave to bring judicial review proceedings. It did not determine whether parental alienation had occurred or decide the underlying family dispute.