The High Court refused a woman’s application for judicial review of a Circuit Court order allowing her childhood care file to be used in an expert assessment connected to child care proceedings involving her brother and his wife. Mr Justice Birmingham held that the issue had become moot because the order had already been carried out and the information could not be “unlearned”.
The woman, identified in the judgment as H.H., had been in the voluntary care of the Health Service Executive (HSE) for about three years from the age of 14. Her file recorded that she had then alleged sexual abuse by three family members. The same individuals were central to later child care proceedings concerning her brother P.H. and his wife T.H.’s children.
The HSE sought access to H.H.’s historical records for Dr Patrick Randall, an expert appointed to assess risk in those proceedings. H.H. refused consent. A District Court judge declined to dispense with consent, doubting his authority to do so. On appeal, Judge Petria McDonnell of the Circuit Court ordered that a copy of the file be given to Dr Randall to assist his assessment of risk concerning P.H. and of T.H.’s capacity to protect the children.
The Circuit Court imposed restrictions: Dr Randall had to return the file to the HSE’s solicitors when his assessment was complete, and could not directly refer to or extract from the file in his assessment. The children’s guardian ad litem could inspect the file but could not copy it or use extracts in reports. The order was complied with shortly after it was made.
H.H. argued that the possibility of similar disclosure in future kept the dispute live, and that different considerations applied in child care cases. The High Court rejected that argument, distinguishing a previous case involving the possible future use of child protection powers. Here, the disclosure had already happened, and the parties had no reason to access the information again. The judge also noted that the Circuit Court order was made on 6 April 2011, while the judicial review application followed on 3 October 2011. He said a stay could have prevented the issue being overtaken by events.
Because he considered the case moot, the judge said it was neither necessary nor appropriate to decide the substantive issues in detail. He made brief observations that the HSE held the file and had to decide whether to use or suppress potentially relevant information, and that children’s interests were paramount in the care proceedings. He also described the Circuit Court’s access restrictions as an attempt to balance competing considerations. The High Court refused the relief sought; it did not quash the Circuit Court order.