The Supreme Court has ruled that the District Court can direct the placement of a child in care with relatives or foster carers outside Ireland where the evidence shows that this is in the child's best interests.
The ruling arose from plans by the Western Health Board to place Thomas M, who was in long-term care, with relatives of his mother in Kent, England. His mother, Karen M, opposed the proposed move and appealed an earlier High Court ruling which had confirmed the District Court's power to authorise it.
Thomas was born in May 1996. A care order made in June 1997 committed him to the Health Board until adulthood because of concerns linked to his mother's psychiatric difficulties and inability to care for him. He had since lived with foster parents in Co Mayo, but that placement was regarded as temporary.
Relatives in Kent later offered to foster him on a long-term basis and received a satisfactory assessment from Kent Social Services. The Health Board considered placement with relatives preferable. Karen M argued that moving her son abroad would make regular contact more difficult and weaken the practical supervision available from both the Health Board and the District Court.
Mrs Justice McGuinness, delivering the Supreme Court judgment, held that section 47 of the Child Care Act 1991 gives the District Court broad powers to make orders affecting the welfare of a child in care. The court said the legislation should be interpreted purposively as a remedial child-protection statute.
However, an overseas placement is not automatic. The District Court must carefully examine factors including the constitutional rights of the child and parents, the child-protection law of the destination country, recognition of Irish court orders, practical access for parents and arrangements for cooperation between child-care authorities.
The Supreme Court dismissed the mother's appeal. It also confirmed that the District Court may limit the duration of an overseas placement where that serves the child's welfare.