A father was awarded costs for proceedings in which the District Court refused an Emergency Care Order for his child, after finding that the evidence did not meet the statutory threshold. The costs award was limited to one legal representative for the two hearing days.
The judgment, delivered by Judge Rosemary Horgan on 5 February 2018, concerned an application by the father for costs against Tusla, the Child and Family Agency. The proceedings were heard in camera and remain subject to statutory reporting restrictions. The judgment says nothing may be reported that could identify the child, the parents or their extended family.
The case began after the mother, who had agreed to a voluntary period of care for two children, withdrew her consent. The court recorded that the Agency applied for an Emergency Care Order at short notice. The mother’s account was that she had sought temporary respite support during a crisis and was not given it; the Agency said there were wider concerns, including repeated respite placements and instability affecting the children. The circumstances were disputed.
After hearing evidence, the court refused the Emergency Care Order. It found that the Agency had not established reasonable cause to believe the child would face an immediate and serious risk to her health if returned to her mother’s care. The judge also adjourned the application for an Interim Care Order to allow further evidence and appointed a Guardian Ad Litem for the child. That application was later resolved through a Family Welfare Conference and an amended Safety Plan; the Agency ultimately did not seek an order.
In seeking costs, the father argued that the emergency application was brought on very short notice, required a lengthy hearing and involved complex family circumstances. Tusla submitted that the proceedings were necessary to protect children and that costs should not be awarded absent exceptional circumstances. The judge found no impropriety or capriciousness by the Agency, but noted the speed with which the proceedings were brought and the practical need for the father to have legal representation.
The court awarded costs for the Emergency Care Order application, citing the short notice, the hearing and the combination of circumstances in the case. It refused costs for the Interim Care Order proceedings: those issues were resolved by agreement after further engagement, so their outcome was not particularly clear and compelling. The judgment does not state a monetary amount for the award.