The High Court has protected a guardian ad litem from having to pay the Child and Family Agency's legal costs if she ultimately loses judicial review proceedings concerning the welfare of a 15-year-old child.
The underlying case concerns two District Court orders made in November and December 2025. Those orders directed the Agency to immediately prepare and submit a formal special-care referral for the child, who had previously been subject to a special care order.
The Agency is challenging those orders in the High Court. It argues that the District Court has no power to direct steps towards a special care application, which is a separate statutory process ultimately brought before the High Court.
The guardian ad litem, H.T., disputes that interpretation. She argues that section 47 of the Child Care Act 1991 gives the District Court broad powers to make directions concerning the welfare of a child in care.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons did not decide that substantive dispute in this February 25 ruling. He found only that the guardian has a respectable legal argument and that the issue is one of general public importance whose answer is not clear-cut.
The judgment records concerns that the child had become involved with drug dealers and had received specific threats over an alleged debt. The guardian's position is that consideration of special care should progress, while the Agency takes a different view.
The court held that the guardian is the proper opposing party, or legitimus contradictor, in the judicial review because the District Court judge is not joined to such proceedings. Her participation is important both to the child's interests and to ensuring the legal question is fully argued.
Without protection, the guardian faced potential liability for up to €25,000 plus VAT in Agency costs. The court held it would be unreasonable to expect her to take that personal financial risk in a professional role.
The protective order only shields her from adverse costs. Whether she can recover her own costs, and whether section 26 of the Child Care Act covers High Court judicial review costs, remain undecided.