The High Court found that interim care order extensions for two children were invalidly made because the District Court extended them over their mother’s objection without hearing evidence from available witnesses. The court invited the parties to make submissions on the next step; it did not make a further care order in this judgment.
The children, aged 12 and 10, had been in the Health Service Executive’s care and legal custody since 19 July 2011 under emergency and interim care orders. The extension at issue, made on 21 June 2012, continued the interim order for 28 days, to 19 July. An application for full care orders remained pending.
At the extension hearing, the mother’s counsel initially indicated that an extension would not be opposed if the full care application was listed for a two-week hearing beginning on 16 July. The HSE said its assessment of the father of one child and his home circumstances was incomplete, and that the case would not be ready then. The mother’s counsel withdrew consent unless the hearing date was confirmed and objected to the extension.
The HSE’s counsel told the District Court that further information had caused concern and that fundamental concerns remained. A social worker and the children’s guardian ad litem were present with up-to-date reports and were prepared to give evidence, but neither was called. The District Court extended the orders and adjourned the matter to 19 July.
The mother argued that an opposed interim order extension required evidence, including current information, and that earlier evidence could not replace it. The HSE and guardian’s counsel argued that the court could take account of the continuing proceedings, previous hearings and submissions. The HSE also characterised the challenge as a case-management dispute.
Justice Iseult O’Malley held that the District Court could rely on its memory of earlier evidence or reminders from counsel, but had to receive up-to-date information about the circumstances at the time of an extension application. In the normal course, she said, that information should be given orally so the opposing party could test it. Though exceptional circumstances could sometimes justify deciding an extension on submissions, the court found that was not the situation here: two potential witnesses were available.
The judge concluded that the HSE should have called evidence and the District Court should have heard it before deciding whether the statutory criteria continued to be met. She held that the extension orders were invalid and that the children were not lawfully in the HSE’s custody under those orders. The judgment did not end the underlying full care order application; the HSE remained free to apply for a new interim order, and the court invited submissions about the next step.