The High Court has refused a Health Service Executive request to share records from child care proceedings concerning S.C. with relevant authorities in the United Kingdom. The court declined to lift the in camera rule or dispense with S.C.’s consent, while leaving open the possibility of a later application for specific documents.
In a judgment delivered on 14 November 2013, Mr Justice Birmingham said the HSE sought permission to provide any necessary information, reports or assessments relating to the proceedings. There were no child care proceedings underway at the time, and the request did not identify a defined set of records.
S.C. had been in HSE care from 2000 under a District Court order. The High Court later ordered her detention at Gleann Alainn in Glanmire, County Cork, and then her transfer to a secure care unit in Peterborough, England. She left secure care in June 2012 and continued living in England. The court reviewed her situation regularly after her discharge, including for a period after she turned 18 in February 2013.
The HSE applied after receiving a request from the social work team at the hospital where S.C. was attending in connection with her pregnancy. The judgment records that London Borough of Bartnet social services were concerned about the unborn baby’s safety and wellbeing, and that a professional was seeking to assess S.C.’s parenting capacity and safeguarding issues before the birth.
S.C. opposed release of her records. Her mother, the second defendant, also opposed disclosure, arguing it would infringe her personal and family rights. The judge appointed S.C.’s guardian ad litem, Pauline Underwood, to act as a legitimus contradictor; she also conveyed S.C.’s views to the court. The HSE and the defendants made submissions on privacy, data protection and family rights.
The judge said any interference with those rights could not be wider than strictly necessary. He also cited the importance of professionals being able to prepare frank reports for the High Court’s Minors List, and the risk that expected disclosure to agencies dealing with a former minor could inhibit that work. He noted that UK authorities were likely to have more recent information about S.C.’s life, including after she turned 18.
The court did not determine whether a particular document or category of documents might later be necessary. Justice Birmingham said a further application could be made if specific material became significant in future proceedings. For now, he declined to make the orders sought.