The High Court declined all relief sought by two applicants challenging child-care proceedings involving their youngest child, Z. The court held that most of the requested orders had become moot after the child had been returned to the applicants and the relevant care order had expired. It rejected the remaining claims, including a request for a permanent injunction and damages.
The applicants, identified as KW and SD, are UK nationals. Before Z was born in Ireland in December 2015, Welsh Children’s Services had told the Child and Family Agency (CFA) that it intended to seek the child’s placement in foster care from birth. The CFA then applied for emergency and interim care orders in the District Court. The applicants opposed later applications, cross-examined a social worker and declined to give evidence.
In April 2016, after hearings on an interim care order, the District Court extended the order and directed an independent forensic parenting-capacity assessment. The judgment says the CFA arranged regular contact and bi-weekly access visits. By July 2016, a plan was under way to transition Z back to the applicants. The CFA’s application for a supervision order was refused in September, and the applicants returned to the UK with Z. At the time of the High Court hearing, Z and a later-born sibling were subject to interim care orders in the UK.
The applicants sought judicial review of the District Court’s February 2016 interim care order, orders concerning access and transfer of the proceedings to the UK, relief under the European Convention on Human Rights, and damages. The court said the challenged District Court proceedings had ended, the order had expired, and the child had previously returned to the applicants. It also noted that proceedings to transfer the care case to the UK had been withdrawn and struck out. It saw no reason to use its discretion to decide issues that were moot.
The court refused the request for a permanent injunction that would prevent the CFA from seeking further care orders that kept the child outside the birth family. It said this would withdraw statutory powers granted to the agency by the Oireachtas, which the court had no power to do.
On damages, the judge found no evidence that the CFA or its staff had acted in a way that could amount to misfeasance in public office, or that they had acted other than in good faith and without negligence. The judgment concluded that the applicants’ stress did not establish legal wrongdoing. The court noted that each relief not rendered moot was declined.