The High Court quashed an emergency care order that led to the removal of a newborn from her mother in hospital, ruling that the Child and Family Agency had not put evidence before the District Court that less intrusive alternatives had been considered. The court refused the parents’ separate challenge to a later interim care order, which remained in force.
In a judgment delivered on 27 November 2018, Mr Justice Noonan said the agency had known of the pregnancy months in advance and had time to assess alternatives. The District Court granted the emergency order on 7 November, the day after the baby’s birth, for two days. Gardaí and social workers then removed the baby from the hospital. The High Court described the removal as traumatic and said the District Court had not been given evidence that any alternative was considered.
The parents’ challenge argued that the application should not have been heard without notice and that the removal was disproportionate. The agency said there was an immediate risk and that advance notice could have led the parents to abscond with the baby. The judge accepted that there was credible evidence supporting an ex parte hearing and that the District Court had a proper basis to find urgency. But he held that the agency had to show it considered less intrusive measures before seeking the removal. Keeping the baby temporarily in hospital was raised as a possible alternative; there was no evidence it had been assessed or that the hospital had been consulted. The judge therefore found the emergency order disproportionate and quashed it.
The parents also challenged the interim care order made on 9 November for 21 days, arguing that their lawyers had too little time and information to prepare. The judge acknowledged that preparation time was short and that earlier social-work reports concerning the family’s other nine children were unavailable at the hearing. However, the District Court had the agency’s detailed chronology, the parents were represented, and the baby was already in care. The judge concluded the District Court was right to refuse an adjournment because returning the baby to her mother during a delay could expose her to risk. He refused to quash the interim order.
The ruling addressed the two orders only: the emergency care order was quashed, while the challenge to the interim care order was dismissed. It did not determine any later application for a full care order.