The High Court has made no costs order against the mother of a 14-year-old boy after dismissing her plenary proceedings on procedural grounds. It ordered the Child and Family Agency (CFA) to pay the legal costs of the boy’s guardian ad litem (GAL), to be adjudicated if the parties cannot agree them.
In a judgment delivered on 4 July 2024, Mr Justice Jordan dealt only with costs. The underlying proceedings had been dismissed because plenary proceedings were not the appropriate route to pursue alleged contempt of court. The judge said such an application should be made by motion for attachment and committal. The alleged contempt was not determined in these proceedings, and the CFA remained entitled to the presumption of innocence in relation to it.
The case arose after the CFA obtained special care orders for the boy but did not give effect to the order made in December 2023. The court recorded that later orders were made in March and June 2024, and that the boy had not been admitted to a special care unit. The agency had described staffing difficulties in the special care system in other proceedings, but had not filed an affidavit explaining its failure to implement the order in this case.
The judge said the mother had pursued the proceedings bona fide, seeking to get her son admitted to special care. He found that the CFA had caused the case by not implementing an order it had sought and obtained, and criticised its failure to engage constructively with the mother’s concerns. The court also recorded the serious risks to the boy described in the judgment, including drug use, absconding from care, sleeping rough and exposure to abuse.
Although the mother’s chosen procedure failed, the court said it would be unjust to award costs to the CFA against her. It made no costs order in her favour either. The boy’s father had not sought costs, and the state notice parties had agreed to bear their own costs.
The judge treated the GAL’s position separately. She had been appointed in the special care proceedings and was considered a necessary notice party. The court said she and her legal team had assisted the proceedings and that the mother should not have to bear the GAL’s costs. It ordered the CFA to pay those legal costs, with the amount to be determined if not agreed.