The District Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to prevent the Child and Family Agency from withdrawing its application for care orders for two children, identified as C and D. The judge said the application had therefore ended and the children’s Guardian Ad Litem was automatically discharged. The ruling did not determine the underlying allegations or make findings of fact.
The agency had applied in 2014 for care orders under section 18(1) of the Child Care Act 1991. It also obtained interim care orders, under which C and D remained in the agency’s care while the substantive application was pending.
The hearing began in early 2016 but the agency had not completed its evidence. The judge said several more days would be needed for the agency’s remaining evidence, the parents’ evidence and the Guardian Ad Litem’s evidence, with other witnesses potentially required. Because the evidence was incomplete, the court said it could not then make findings of fact.
After the court refused an adjournment request in summer 2016, the agency’s counsel said the agency wished to withdraw its application. The parents did not oppose withdrawal. The Guardian Ad Litem argued that the court had power to refuse it, and a separate Guardian Ad Litem for the children’s siblings supported that position.
The judge considered whether the District Court Rules allowed the court to refuse withdrawal. The ruling noted that Order 47B provides for court permission to withdraw a claim in some circumstances, but concluded that it could not be used to override the agency’s decision. Under section 16 of the 1991 Act, the judge said, the agency had a duty to apply when it considered a child required care or protection that would not otherwise be received, and a duty to withdraw if it no longer held that view.
The judge also concluded that only the agency could apply for a care order under section 18(1). Refusing withdrawal, the ruling said, would effectively require the agency to pursue an application it had decided not to continue, or have the court take it over. The judge found no statutory authority for the court to do either, or to review the agency’s decision in this context.
The court accordingly treated the 2014 care-order application as at an end. The ruling states that the Guardian Ad Litem was automatically discharged, with costs to follow under section 26 of the Act. It does not state a separate final determination of the interim care arrangements.