The High Court dismissed an application seeking the release of a baby from the custody of the Child and Family Agency, ruling that the District Court could make a short interim care order after its hearing ran out of time before all evidence had been heard.
The Article 40.4.2° application challenged an interim care order made by Judge Aingeal Ní Chondúin on 5 September 2018. The order was to last 12 days, until the matter returned for a resumed hearing on 17 September.
The baby had been living with her mother in a mother and baby home from 11 June to 29 August 2018. On 29 August, following agency concerns, the District Court made an emergency care order for eight days. The agency later sought an interim care order. Its reports were provided to the applicant’s lawyers on 4 September, one day before that application was heard.
The hearing on 5 September included oral evidence from the home’s unit manager, who was cross-examined on the applicant’s behalf. Evidence from the home’s clinical lead began but was not completed. The judge said it was impossible to continue that evening and set the earliest available date for the case to resume. She then made the interim order.
For the applicant, counsel argued that the late delivery of reports breached court rules and fair procedures, and that an order made before all evidence was heard was outside the District Court’s jurisdiction. The High Court found that the late-material complaint did not meet the high threshold for a fundamental denial of justice. The applicant’s counsel had not sought an adjournment to address the materials at the District Court hearing.
The court also rejected the argument that the unfinished hearing deprived the District Court of jurisdiction. It held that where time makes full procedures impractical, a curtailed process can be permissible, provided the departure is no greater than necessity requires. The judge had written evidence and had heard and allowed cross-examination of the first witness; the High Court said the order was limited to 12 days.
The High Court dismissed the application. It left the next steps to the District Court at the resumed hearing on 17 September. The High Court also directed that material tending to identify the applicant, her mother or other family members must not be published. It expressed hope that the agency could facilitate access for the mother and maternal grandparents before the resumed hearing; those comments were not an order granting access.