The High Court has refused an application to release a premature baby from an interim care order made by the District Court, finding there was sufficient evidence at that stage to support the temporary order.
In a judgment delivered on 3 January 2014, Mr Justice Michael Peart said the applicant, identified as W, was born at 29 weeks’ gestation on 3 October 2013 and remained in a neonatal unit with chronic lung disease. He also had bilateral inguinal hernias that would require surgery. The judge said W was expected to remain in hospital for several weeks, including for surgery and recovery.
The Health Service Executive (HSE) obtained the interim care order on 11 December 2013 under section 17 of the Child Care Act 1991. The order was due to expire on 8 January 2014. A full care order application was anticipated, but the judgment said it was not expected to be heard on that date and could take up to four days.
W’s father, acting on his behalf as next friend with his mother’s consent, brought the constitutional application to challenge the lawfulness of the order. The parents wanted W to be discharged to their care when medically ready. The judgment records that they had no permanent accommodation or financial means beyond welfare benefits, while the father’s parents had offered to have the family stay with them in Dublin.
The parents argued that the interim order was being used to allow social workers to continue assessing them, and that a supervision order could allow that assessment while they cared for W. They also raised concerns about the District Judge’s impartiality. The HSE argued that the order was valid on its face and that challenges to the District Court’s decision should generally be pursued by appeal or judicial review.
Mr Justice Peart distinguished the interim-order threshold from the test for a full care order. Under section 17, the District Court needed reasonable cause to believe that a circumstance listed in section 18 existed or had existed, and that the child needed care or protection unlikely to be received without an order. A full care order requires the court to be satisfied that the relevant circumstances actually exist.
The High Court concluded that evidence about the mother’s history and current circumstances, the baby’s needs, the parents’ accommodation and the social worker’s concerns was sufficient for the District Judge to make the interim order. The judge said this did not decide whether the higher test for a full care order would be met later.
The court also said allegations of bias were better addressed by judicial review, where the District Judge could be heard, and that challenges to care orders should generally proceed by appeal or judicial review. The application for release was refused. The judgment did not decide the anticipated full care order application.