The High Court refused leave and refused an order for judicial review in a case concerning a mother’s access to her young son, who was in State care under a District Court order.
In a judgment delivered on 29 July 2016, Ms Justice Baker said the application sought declarations about broad legal principles governing the rights of parents and children, but did not identify a particular District Court order being challenged or seek review of the process used to make one.
The case was the third of three judicial review applications brought by the mother and her son. The boy, born in 2010, had been made subject to a care order under the Child Care Act 1991 in July 2011. The applications concerned ongoing care, custody and access arrangements. The court noted that the District Court had spent about 60 days dealing with the child’s care and custody, and that the Circuit Court had heard an appeal over eight days before confirming the primary care order.
The mother’s affidavit described difficulties with access after a District Court order made in May 2015. It referred to an alleged breach raised in court on 6 July 2015 and to a request for an audio recording before access began, which the District Court refused. Justice Baker said these factual matters were not set out in the statement of grounds in a way that linked them to the relief sought. She also said the High Court could not determine how access should be regulated without evidence about the child’s welfare.
The judgment said that decisions about directions for a child in State care under the 1991 Act belonged to the District Court, with an appeal by full rehearing to the Circuit Court. It was not the High Court’s role in judicial review to decide the merits of the care case or make access directions.
The judge did not decide the application on a possible time-limit issue. She said the effect of an earlier order granting leave was unclear, and the applicants’ counsel could not clarify it. The court therefore made orders refusing both leave and judicial review.