The Court of Appeal has dismissed a grandmother’s appeal against the refusal of judicial review over decisions affecting her contact with her grandchildren, while urging the Child and Family Agency to follow the steps set out by the Circuit Court for possible access.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Faherty on 17 July 2024, concerned two grandchildren who remain in the agency’s care. The grandmother had challenged District Court decisions made between 2015 and 2018 and a Circuit Court order of 20 February 2020, which affirmed the refusal of her applications for access.
The Court of Appeal found no basis to overturn the High Court’s decisions on the earlier District Court orders. The challenges were out of time; the court also upheld the finding that some had been overtaken by later orders. It rejected the argument that the grandmother’s Article 8 rights required the time limits to be set aside.
The court also dismissed her challenge to the Circuit Court decision. That court had refused immediate access but set out steps that could allow access to be considered: a meeting with the agency’s allocated social worker and team leader, any preparatory work or assessment the agency might require, and supervised access if it began. The Court of Appeal said the Circuit Court had not ordered a psychological assessment.
The Court of Appeal noted that the grandmother had the opportunity to give evidence and cross-examine the social worker and guardian ad litem at the Circuit Court hearing. It said judicial review was not the route for re-examining the merits of that access decision and that a fresh application under section 37 of the Child Care Act 1991 remained open to her.
In a postscript, Ms Justice Faherty said both sides had misunderstood aspects of the Circuit Court’s decision. The agency’s request that the grandmother first meet an administrative staff member to arrange a clinical psychological assessment had reversed the sequence the Circuit Court envisaged and was a legitimate cause for complaint. The judgment urged the agency to write inviting her to meet the allocated social worker and team leader. Any next steps would be for the agency to assess if she engaged.
The court proposed that there be no order as to the costs of the appeal. Either party could notify the court within ten days if seeking a different costs order; absent such notice, the High Court order would be affirmed and the appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.