Judgment: 2026-06-18 · Court archive

District Court calls for full age assessments before future child-care inquiries

Dublin Metropolitan District Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • W
  • Child and Family Agency
  • Judge Conor Fottrell
What

District Court calls for full age assessments before future child-care inquiries

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Somalia
  • Ireland
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The judgment records that an Agency assessment in August 2025 concluded W was under 18. An updated assessment in March 2026 reached the opposite conclusion, and that finding was upheld on appeal within the Agency's process. The updated assessment was not, however, placed in evidence before the District Court during the section 32 inquiry.

A Dublin District Court judge has said comprehensive multi-disciplinary assessments should be completed before courts are asked to determine the age of young people whose age is uncertain in child-care proceedings.

Judge Conor Fottrell made the comments in proceedings concerning W, an anonymised unaccompanied young person who arrived in Ireland from Somalia in July 2025 and was initially treated as a minor.

The Child and Family Agency had asked the court to conduct an inquiry under section 32 of the Child Care Act 1991. That provision requires the court, in relevant child-care proceedings, to inquire into a person's age where necessary and allows the age declared by the court to be treated as the person's true age until contrary evidence is produced.

The inquiry began over two days in May 2026, when seven witnesses gave evidence. Two further hearing dates were scheduled. However, the Agency notified the court in June that it was withdrawing its request, and the remaining dates were vacated.

The judgment records that an Agency assessment in August 2025 concluded W was under 18. An updated assessment in March 2026 reached the opposite conclusion, and that finding was upheld on appeal within the Agency's process. The updated assessment was not, however, placed in evidence before the District Court during the section 32 inquiry.

Judge Fottrell said this left the court in the difficult position of being asked to determine W's age without all relevant evidence from the body that had requested the inquiry.

The case had appeared before the District Court 35 times since October 2025, including ten appearances connected with the age inquiry. The judge said the process had required substantial court time, resources and costs.

He said that, for future section 32 requests, the Agency should first complete a comprehensive multi-disciplinary age assessment and place it before the court.

The immediate application before the court was to extend W's Interim Care Order. That was granted for one day, until June 19, 2026, bringing the matter before Judge Fottrell to a conclusion.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review