The High Court has ordered the Child and Family Agency and the Health Service Executive (HSE) to pay costs to a mother who brought an emergency application over the care of her daughter, a minor identified in the judgment as “C”.
In a judgment delivered on 18 December 2014, Ms Justice Bronagh O’Hanlon said the mother had been successful in seeking High Court orders after no bed had been secured for C in an approved residential centre. The court awarded costs in her favour, while recognising that awarding costs remained within its discretion.
The mother had agreed in December 2012 to place C in voluntary care. The judgment says C’s behaviour later deteriorated and placed her and others at significant risk. A District Court application under the Child Care Act 1991 began in January 2014. In August, the mother turned to the High Court seeking orders to secure a bed for C.
At an emergency hearing on 29 August 2014, the High Court directed hospital clinical directors to meet to identify a bed and ordered that care staff at the Acorn unit receive psychiatric input over the weekend. The judgment does not say that the High Court itself ordered a placement. On 2 September, the parties told the District Court that a bed had been secured at Linn Dara, an approved centre under the Mental Health Act 2001. The District Court then made a detention order under section 25 of that Act on the HSE’s application.
The mother sought costs for the High Court proceedings. She argued that costs should follow the event because her emergency application had succeeded, and that her receipt of legal aid should not count against an award. The defendants argued that costs should not be awarded against the HSE where a parent was legally aided, relying on a 2010 Supreme Court decision. They also contended that the High Court should await further guidance in related proceedings.
Justice O’Hanlon said the legal aid legislation required courts to consider costs applications in the same way as if the parties were paying privately. She treated the earlier Supreme Court decision as an exercise of discretion on its particular facts, rather than a rule barring costs for legally aided parents.
The judge concluded that the mother had been obliged to apply to the High Court because effective action had not secured an approved placement. The proceedings were adjourned generally; the judgment addressed the mother’s costs application, not the ultimate resolution of the wider care proceedings.