The District Court ordered the Child and Family Agency to pay the costs of an applicant mother after finding it was reasonable, necessary and proper for her to bring and maintain proceedings concerning her daughter’s care. The costs are to be taxed if the parties cannot agree the amount.
The application arose from District Court proceedings under sections 47 and 26 of the Child Care Act 1991. The mother had sought care documents, including an up-to-date care plan and risk assessment, and the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem for Child A, whose identity is withheld in the judgment.
The judgment recounts serious concerns recorded in care plans and reports, including repeated episodes of the child going missing from care, self-harm and suicidal thoughts, drug use and allegations of sexual assault. These matters were reported in documents before the court; they are not findings in this costs decision that each alleged incident occurred.
On the hearing date, the Agency produced an updated care plan, several risk assessments, a crisis management plan and a safety plan. The District Court directed that an updated full report and therapeutic plan be prepared, with input from named services, and that a strategy meeting be organised. The Agency later accepted that an application for secure care should be made. The judgment says the child was ultimately approved for secure care by the High Court in separate proceedings, and received a placement when a resource became available.
A Guardian ad Litem was appointed in 2015 and submitted two reports. The District Court later reviewed the child’s circumstances and sought a structured plan. The judge found that the proceedings also led to the child’s views being heard, through the Guardian and a meeting with the judge.
In considering costs, the judge addressed the Supreme Court’s decision in *CFA v O.A.* [2015] IESC 52. The judge considered that case distinguishable, noting that the present application had been brought by a mother seeking action in respect of a child in voluntary care, rather than by a parent responding to Agency proceedings. The judge also noted that the Agency accepted the care plan and risk assessment were provided as a result of these proceedings.
The Agency submitted that events before the child entered voluntary care, and the mother’s actions or inaction, may have contributed to the child’s distress. The judge said those assertions were not substantiated by evidence and did not excuse any failure by the Agency after it assumed statutory responsibility.
The court’s order was limited to the mother’s costs in these proceedings. It did not determine the separate High Court secure-care application. District Court Judge Marie Quirke made the costs order.