The High Court has refused a mother’s application for judicial review of care orders made for her four children, finding that she had other available routes to challenge their duration.
The orders were made by the District Court in February 2015 and ran until each child reached 18. At the time, the children were aged two, four, six and seven, so the orders ranged from 12 to 16.5 years. The mother had sought orders lasting three years. She did not challenge the basis for making care orders, but argued that the District Court’s reasons for imposing longer terms were inadequate and that the durations were disproportionate.
The District Court hearing lasted seven days and included evidence from 15 witnesses, including social workers, psychologists and a doctor specialising in drug treatment. Both parents accepted that the statutory threshold for care orders had been met. The Child and Family Agency and the children’s guardian ad litem recommended orders until the children turned 18. The District Court cited the children’s exposure to domestic violence and drug addiction, concerns about supervision and the parents’ capacity to care, and limited progress in addressing their difficulties.
The mother argued that the orders interfered with family and children’s rights and were contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The High Court stressed that judicial review was not an appeal on the merits: it would not decide whether shorter care orders should have been made, but whether the decision-making process was lawful.
Justice Twomey found that the mother could have appealed to the Circuit Court, where the case would be reheard. She could also apply to the District Court under section 22 of the Child Care Act 1991 to vary or discharge the orders. The original District Court had provided for reviews of the children’s progress, although the first review, scheduled for January 2016, was adjourned to May. The High Court noted there was no suggestion the adjournment had been against the mother’s wishes.
The judge considered those alternatives suitable, particularly because the mother’s own case was that her circumstances were improving and a review could consider later changes. He found that the original hearing had given her a proper consideration of the issues and that the available remedies did not cause injustice. The judicial review application was therefore refused. The judgment also discussed taxpayer costs as a factor courts may consider when choosing between remedies, but said costs were not needed to decide this case.