The Supreme Court dismissed the Child and Family Agency’s appeal in a case concerning the handling of an interim care order application for two children. In a separate judgment concurring with colleagues, Ms Justice Dunne said a one-week adjournment would have allowed both parents to be properly represented and would not have put the children at risk.
The case arose after the Dublin District Court made an interim care order on 29 October 2015, removing the children from their mother’s care and placing them with the agency. The parents, anonymised in the judgment as S. McG and J.C., had serious drug addiction problems. The children had been living in circumstances described as “chaotic”.
Before the District Court hearing, the agency’s solicitor and the mother’s solicitor were prepared to agree to a week’s adjournment. The mother’s solicitor needed time to prepare, and the father needed an opportunity to obtain emergency legal aid. Dunne said the circumstances were not so urgent as to require an immediate hearing, but the District Court judge proceeded that day.
The mother had a lawyer, but her solicitor had inadequate time to prepare. The father had no lawyer, was functionally illiterate and, Dunne said, was not capable of representing himself properly. The High Court directed the children’s phased return to their mother following discussions between the parties. Dunne noted that the children were later made subject to further care orders and remained in care at the time of the Supreme Court judgment.
Dunne distinguished the interim care application from an emergency care order application. Under section 13 of the Child Care Act 1991, an emergency order may be made where there is reasonable cause to believe an immediate and serious risk requires a child to be placed in agency care. It may be made without notice if urgency requires, and lasts up to eight days or a shorter period specified by the court.
She said urgent child-protection circumstances can justify proceeding without parents having a full opportunity to attend, be heard or obtain representation. But this case involved an interim care order, and she said there was no immediate risk to the children’s safety or welfare. On these facts, the proposed one-week adjournment would not have prejudiced the agency or endangered the children. Dunne therefore also considered that a short adjournment was warranted and dismissed the appeal.