The Court of Appeal has dismissed three appeals by a 16-year-old in the care of the Child and Family Agency (CFA), upholding special care orders that provide for his return to Ireland from England. The court gave its reasons in a judgment delivered on 18 October 2024, after dismissing the appeals in an ex tempore ruling on 12 July.
The appeals challenged special care orders made by the High Court on 22 February and 16 May 2024, and its refusal on 18 April to discharge the first order. The teenager was in England after absconding from care in Ireland in December 2023. At the time of the appeal hearing, he had not been placed in special care and was in accommodation in England.
The CFA acknowledged that no special care bed was available when it sought either order. The teenager argued that the statutory requirements were not met, that returning him before a bed was available was not in his best interests, and that he could face criminal proceedings on return. He also challenged the High Court’s refusal to hear his discharge application and its appointment of a guardian ad litem while granting him the rights of a party.
In a judgment delivered by Ms Justice Faherty, the Court of Appeal held that the lack of an available bed did not prevent the High Court from making a special care order. It said the statutory criteria concerned the child’s needs and best interests, and did not require the CFA to have an immediate placement available. The CFA was required to take steps to execute the orders, beginning with the teenager’s return to Ireland. The court noted that he would be placed in non-secure accommodation while awaiting a special care bed, and described the lack of capacity as “deeply unsatisfactory and regrettable”.
The court also rejected the argument that the special care process was being used to bring him back to face criminal charges. No TCA warrant had been issued, and the evidence did not establish that the special care orders were sought to advance the criminal process. The judgment noted that criminal proceedings and special care operate separately under the legislation, with criminal custody taking precedence in specified circumstances.
On the discharge application, the court held that the legislation did not give a child or guardian ad litem standing to apply directly. It said concerns could be put before the High Court through evidence, reports or submissions, allowing the court to consider discharge of its own motion. It also upheld the appointment of the guardian ad litem: the teenager had rights equivalent to those of a party but had not formally been joined as a party.
The Court of Appeal dismissed all three appeals. It said a short hearing on costs would be scheduled for a date to be advised.