The District Court held that two parents must bear the costs of solicitors they engaged in child care proceedings, finding that Legal Aid Board representation was available and no compelling reason had been shown for not using it.
The ruling, dated 5 January 2011, arose from the parents’ application for costs covering their solicitors’ representation from 22 June 2010 onwards. The court rejected the Health Service Executive’s submission that it lacked power to award costs, relying on its earlier decision in HSE and SK & CP [2010] IEDC 2.
The proceedings began on 4 March 2010, when the HSE obtained a Supervision Order due to expire on 4 June. The parents were present and unrepresented. The HSE later obtained an Emergency Care Order on 18 May, due to expire on 22 May, and an Interim Care Order on 25 May, due to expire on 22 June. The parents were absent at the 25 May hearing. The court was told that a taxi sent by the HSE had collected the mother, but she did not complete the journey to court; it was also told that the father was incarcerated.
On 22 June, the HSE obtained an extension of the Interim Care Order to 20 July, and the parents were represented. The order was extended seven more times, until 5 January 2011, when a Supervision Order was made.
The parents said their lives were chaotic from March to June 2010 because of drug abuse. The mother said she contacted the Legal Aid Board but could not raise the €50 contribution she was told was required. The father also said he could not raise the contribution and that his incarceration made it difficult to access civil legal aid. Their solicitors had been engaged by the father in criminal matters and agreed to represent both parents in these proceedings.
The HSE argued that the parents could have sought Legal Aid Board representation and that it should not have to pay for their chosen solicitors. The court said there was no evidence the Board would have refused the applications, caused delay, or provided inadequate representation. It also noted that the parents had not shown they applied to have the contribution reduced or waived.
The court said that where Legal Aid Board representation was timely and available at little or no cost, and there was no compelling reason it could not be used, parents who chose other representation had to bear those costs themselves. The judgment does not specify a sum awarded or give a separate costs order.