The High Court made no order as to costs on a mother’s application arising from efforts to secure an appropriate Irish placement for her daughter, a minor identified as C.M.
In a judgment delivered on 7 April 2017, Ms Justice Bronagh O’Hanlon said the proceedings concerned a child welfare case under the court’s inherent jurisdiction and required a less strict approach to the usual rule that costs follow the event. The application concerned a motion the mother brought in July 2015 seeking her daughter’s return from Huntercombe Hospital in England to a suitable placement in Ireland.
C.M. had entered voluntary care in December 2012, aged 14, after displaying concerning behaviour. She was transferred to Huntercombe by court order in November 2014. The judgment records that the hospital considered her ready for discharge by summer 2015, but a suitable placement in Ireland had not been found. The mother argued that the placement eventually arranged reflected her position and that she should receive costs. The Child and Family Agency and the HSE opposed an award, each disputing that the circumstances supplied an event for costs to follow.
The Agency said it had supported a return plan involving Studio III and that the HSE had the statutory responsibility for mental health services. The HSE, which joined the proceedings as a notice party in October 2015, argued that it had assisted the court and that the different placement proposals formed part of a cooperative process. It had advocated a Nua Healthcare placement, while the mother supported a proposal involving Studio III and Positive Futures.
In March 2016, the court directed all parties to take the steps needed for a proper transition and aftercare plan. C.M. returned to Ireland in April 2016. The judgment said the return was achieved through the assistance of the parties and their legal teams working cooperatively. It found that the Agency and mother had been working towards return through Studio III, and that the HSE had not acted improperly by advancing its preferred option or presenting expert evidence.
The judge noted the Supreme Court’s guidance that costs in child care proceedings of this kind should generally not be ordered, given their continuing and collaborative nature. She made no order as to costs on the motion, while recognising the mother and her legal team’s role in seeking a solution. The decision addressed costs only; it did not determine which proposed placement would have been more effective for C.M.