The High Court dismissed a mother’s judicial review and related constitutional proceedings challenging a Circuit Court decision that affirmed a care order for her child until he turns 18.
In a judgment delivered on 28 November 2022, Mr Justice Charles Meenan said the judicial review was out of time. The Circuit Court decision was made on 21 June 2021, while the judicial review proceedings appeared to have been opened on 22 December 2021, about six months later. The court found the applicant had given no “good and sufficient reason” to extend the time limit.
The mother maintained in an affidavit that she had applied for judicial review and received leave on 10 August 2021. The Child and Family Agency said it knew of no such proceedings and had not been given a copy of an order. The judgment said that even if an application had been made then, it appeared there was no return date and the proceedings were not pursued.
Despite finding the case was out of time, the judge also considered the applications on their merits. He said the mother had not identified a jurisdictional error, a failure to follow fair procedures or another legal flaw in the Circuit Court appeal. Her submissions included complaints described as relating to GDPR and “identity theft”. The guardian ad litem had filed an affidavit stating that no issue was taken with the conduct or hearing of the appeal.
The child was first taken into care under an interim order made by Dundalk District Court in February 2016. That court made a care order in July 2017. The mother appealed, and after hearings in May and June 2021, Dundalk Circuit Court affirmed the order until the child reaches 18.
The mother also argued in the Article 40 proceedings that the Childcare Act 1991 was unconstitutional because it had not been translated into Irish. The judge said that issue could be pursued in plenary proceedings with the appropriate parties named.
The court dismissed both the judicial review and Article 40 proceedings. The judge’s provisional view was that there should be no order for costs, but allowed any party seeking costs to file written submissions of no more than 1,500 words by 9 December 2022. The matter was listed for 19 December for final orders; the judgment did not state what final costs order was subsequently made.