The High Court has quashed an interim care order concerning two young boys and remitted the matter to the District Court, which must consider what steps, if any, are needed to safeguard them.
Mr Justice Hogan ruled that the District Court had no authority under the Child Care Act 1991 to require the parents to attend parental assessments or undergo psychotherapy as conditions of a supervision order. The interim care order was invalid insofar as it relied on the parents’ failure to comply with those directions.
The High Court also considered the District Court’s finding that the parents had made a false allegation that an older girl had sexually interfered with one of the boys, and had coached the boys not to cooperate with Health Service Executive social workers. The High Court described the conduct concerning the allegation as a grave moral failure. It said the District Court must decide what action is required, taking account of proportionality; that finding did not mean the children must automatically be placed in care.
The judicial review arose from an interim care order made on 21 October 2013 under section 17 of the 1991 Act. The order followed an HSE application heard in the District Court in September. Its operation was stayed after the parents received leave to seek judicial review, and the matter was heard on an expedited basis. By the time the High Court delivered judgment on 27 November, the interim order had lapsed.
The High Court said the parents’ alleged failure to comply with the supervision order had played a significant part in the District Court’s decision. But the May 2013 directions requiring parental assessments and therapy were invalid: section 19 authorised visits to the child and advice to parents, while the court said sections 19 and 47 did not provide a basis for imposing those personal obligations on parents.
The judgment recorded that the District Court had found no physical abuse of the boys. It had relied instead on findings of emotional abuse, including the allegation about the older girl. The High Court did not itself decide the boys’ immediate placement. It remitted the entire matter to the District Court to assess what measures were needed in light of the judgment.