The High Court granted a mother and her newborn daughter leave to pursue a judicial review challenge to a proposed further care-order hearing, and restrained the District Court from considering that application before 1 March 2016.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys made the orders on 25 February 2016. The immediate restraint runs only until 1 March, when the District Court had already scheduled the matter. The judge said the agency remained free to apply for a further interim care order on that date, subject to legal requirements, and the District Court remained free to decide it. The High Court did not decide whether the existing care order was valid or determine the child’s longer-term care.
The Child and Family Agency had obtained an eight-day emergency care order on 15 January, two days after the child was born. Gardaí removed the child on 22 January. On 2 February, the District Court extended care for 29 days, with the matter set to return on 1 March. The mother and child challenged that order, and the mother’s Article 40 application concerning the child’s detention was refused on 12 February. An appeal was listed in the Court of Appeal for 26 February.
The agency then served notice of another care-order application, returnable on 25 February, while the existing order remained in force. The judge found it arguable that the proposed application was intended to reinforce the agency’s position in the Article 40 appeal, and that the agency should not replace the order relied on in its detention certificate without first obtaining leave from an appropriate court. He stressed that this analysis did not express a view on the appeal itself.
The judgment also criticised the agency’s solicitor for serving the represented mother personally, and described the service as unprofessional and improper. It discussed disputed complaints about access and breastfeeding, and a document the mother was said to have been required to sign concerning feeding, assessment and recording meetings. The judge said she should not be held to that agreement. These matters were addressed in the context of the leave application; the judgment did not determine the underlying care-order application.
The court granted leave on arguable grounds, directed the mother to file a further affidavit within 14 days, and reserved costs. It also ordered that non-professional people referred to in the proceedings could not be identified.