The District Court refused an application to permit a deported mother to return to Ireland to reunite with her four-year-old child, who was in HSE care. The court said it had no power under section 47 of the Child Care Act 1991 to direct her return, while finding it could direct the Minister for Justice to revoke the deportation order relating to the child.
The application was brought by the child’s guardian ad litem (GAL), although the HSE was named as applicant in the case title. The Minister opposed the application. The HSE took a neutral position and said it would comply with any direction from the court.
The child, born in Ireland, had been placed in care after the mother was arrested and imprisoned. An Emergency Care Order was made on 17 August, followed by an Interim Care Order on 24 August 2009. The GAL described the separation as traumatic and distressing, while reporting that the child was well cared for in a comfortable foster placement. The GAL also reported concerns about the mother’s circumstances in Country 1. The Minister disputed that account, relying on a Garda officer’s assessment following telephone contact with her.
The GAL argued that the court’s powers over a child in care allowed it to facilitate the mother’s return for a period of reunification. The court accepted that reunification and deportation were separate issues and that it could consider reunification under the 1991 Act. But it held that section 47’s power to make orders on “any question affecting the welfare” of a child did not allow the District Court to reverse the mother’s deportation in these circumstances.
The judge said the child’s care arose from the mother’s arrest and imprisonment following her non-compliance with immigration directions, rather than from the deportation itself. The court considered the arrest, detention and deportation lawful, and said it had to be slow to interfere with executive decisions. It therefore declined and refused the GAL’s application.
The court said it remained obliged to seek circumstances that could facilitate reunification. It identified possible conditions including the mother securing employment and suitable accommodation and being able to provide the child’s basic needs. The judge suggested that the GAL or a social worker might travel to Country 1 to explore whether those conditions could be met, describing that as a matter for another day.
Separately, the court said it had power to direct the Minister to rescind or revoke the deportation order concerning the child, because the order affected the child’s welfare and limited the court’s care responsibilities. The judgment does not state that such a direction was made.