The High Court declined all the relief sought by a mother and her two children in a challenge to Child and Family Agency (CFA) actions concerning the children’s welfare and the family’s separation.
In a judgment delivered on 4 November 2015, Mr Justice Max Barrett concluded that the child-protection conferences and the decision to place the children’s names on the Child Protection Notification System were not, in the circumstances, subject to judicial review. He said the 27 April conference had been superseded by a later conference on 27 May. Even if the decisions were reviewable, he found no legal deficiency requiring them to be quashed.
The case followed a CFA meeting with the mother on 30 March 2015, at which allegations concerning Mr B were discussed. The judgment stressed that the allegations were allegations only. The following day, CFA staff attended the family home with members of An Garda Síochána and advised the mother to leave with the children for safe accommodation. She agreed to leave. The CFA said any reference to a two-day period concerned an initial consideration of the case, not a final resolution.
The children’s names were placed on the notification system after the 27 April conference. The mother later sought orders quashing the conference decisions, restoring the family unit and preventing further CFA action, among other reliefs. A temporary stay on CFA action affecting the family’s living arrangements, granted when leave for judicial review was given in July, was lifted on 30 October without objection from the mother.
The judge said the 31 March challenge was out of time and, in any event, found the CFA’s actions lawful and proportionate in light of the risks it perceived. He refused an injunction that would prevent the agency from carrying out its statutory duties and said there was no basis for damages or relief under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court did not make the declaration sought over legal representation at conferences. However, it stated that a parent who wishes to bring a solicitor at their own expense should not be stopped or discouraged. It considered the CFA’s request that the mother not bring a lawyer to the first conference dissuasive, with a continuing effect on the second. The judge found no breach of the rule that a person’s submissions must be considered.
The judgment records that the parties requested, and the court made, an order prohibiting publication or broadcast of material that could identify the mother or either child.