The High Court has declined a mother’s request for a declaration that the Child and Family Agency was in contempt for failing to give effect to special care orders concerning her 14-year-old son, identified in the judgment as B.
Mr Justice Jordan said the proper route for an allegation of civil contempt was a motion for attachment and committal under the court rules. He was not persuaded that the mother was entitled to obtain the declaration through her plenary proceedings. The court did not make a finding that the Agency was in contempt.
B’s mother, Y., brought the proceedings as his next friend. The judgment says B. has ADHD and other medical conditions associated with child trauma. The Agency had previously obtained special care orders, including orders made in December 2023 and March 2024, but the judgment records that neither was acted on by placing him in special care.
The parties admitted that B. had returned to high-risk behaviour after leaving special care, and was then living in an unregulated placement. They also agreed that available beds in purpose-built special care units could not be opened because of staffing shortages. The Agency said it could not increase capacity safely without appropriate staffing and could not offer individual employment conditions outside national public service pay arrangements.
The mother did not admit the Agency’s proposed statements that it was exhausting all avenues to increase capacity and that staffing shortages caused the failure to comply with B.’s orders. The judge noted that the Agency called no evidence on those points, despite having an opportunity to explain its position.
The case before the court had initially sought a wider range of remedies, but the mother limited the relief sought to a declaration of contempt. The judge acknowledged the seriousness of the situation described in the judgment, while emphasising that a contempt allegation carries the possibility of significant sanctions and must follow the applicable procedural safeguards. Those include proper service of the order and its penal endorsement.
The judge said there was no good reason to use the High Court’s declaratory jurisdiction when the established contempt procedure could itself result in a finding of contempt. He also identified potential difficulties if a declaration were made and sanctions later pursued through a separate contempt application.
The court therefore declined the declaration. It did not decide any application for attachment or committal, impose a sanction, or determine the disputed explanation for the Agency’s non-compliance. The parties were to be heard on matters arising on 11 April 2024 after the Special Care List concluded.