The High Court refused a father leave to bring judicial review proceedings challenging interim District Court orders that his two younger daughters attend local schools. The court found that he had misconstrued the relevant family law provisions and that the District Court judges had jurisdiction to make the orders.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Declan Budd on 27 June 2007, concerned an application for leave to seek certiorari, which would quash the orders. The father, identified as MJL, argued that proceedings about the children’s schooling were improperly instituted and that the District Court lacked jurisdiction because the required certificate concerning counselling, mediation or agreement had not been provided. He also disputed that his participation in a hearing amounted to an appearance in the guardianship proceedings.
The orders under challenge began on 29 August 2006, when Judge Gerard Haughton directed that the children attend named schools on an interim basis. On 26 September, Judge William Harnett continued that direction until 13 December or until after an appeal, and directed the Health Service Executive to prepare a report. Subsequent orders included supervision orders and further interim arrangements. The High Court noted that the children had started school and were doing well, but said it was not deciding the underlying dispute about what education was best for them.
The father’s wife and the Health Service Executive opposed leave. The court accepted their submissions that the certificate provision in section 20 of the Guardianship of Infants Act did not make mediation or counselling a precondition to proceedings, nor did it automatically deprive the District Court of jurisdiction if a certificate was absent. The judgment also distinguished that provision from section 20 of the Child Care Act, under which the District Court had directed an investigation and report.
The judge concluded that the family law applications could be dealt with together and that the father had attended and participated in the 26 September hearing. He also noted that an appeal to the Circuit Court had been available as an alternative remedy. On the basis of those conclusions, the High Court refused leave. It did not determine the final merits of a judicial review, and the judgment said counsel would be heard on the terms of the order and costs.