The High Court has joined four children as notice parties in a judicial review challenging care orders that placed them in the Child and Family Agency’s care until they reach adulthood. Mr Justice McDermott appointed O.R., their former guardian ad litem, to represent them in the proceedings.
The judgment, delivered on 16 March 2016, concerned O.R.’s application to be joined. The judicial review was brought by L.N. against Judge Colin Daly, Ireland and the Attorney General, with the Child and Family Agency as notice party. The challenge concerns a District Court decision making full care orders for the four children. The High Court did not rule on whether those orders were lawful or proportionate; it decided only that the children should be represented in the judicial review.
The District Court made the care orders on 16 January 2015 after a seven-day hearing. The children had been in the Agency’s care under interim orders. Their parents consented to care orders but argued they should last three years rather than until each child reached adulthood. The District Court heard evidence from 15 doctors, social workers and psychologists, as well as the guardian ad litem.
In its reasons, the District Court cited the children’s exposure to domestic violence and parental drug addiction, inadequate supervision, and what it described as the parents’ limited progress in addressing their difficulties. It said the duration was proportionate in light of the harm and risks to the children. The court also provided for access between the children and their parents at the Agency’s discretion, regular sibling access, and a review of the children’s progress in care in January 2016.
L.N. was granted leave in June 2015 to seek to quash the District Court decision. The grounds include claims that the judge failed to apply proportionality properly and did not consider each child’s constitutional rights individually. These are allegations in the judicial review, not findings made in the joinder judgment.
Mr Justice McDermott said the central issue in the judicial review would be whether the District Court correctly applied proportionality when setting the orders’ duration. If the decision were quashed, the matter could require a rehearing. The judge said the children had a vital interest in that outcome and should be able to have their own case represented, even if respondents made similar arguments.
The court concluded that it had jurisdiction to join the children as notice parties and appoint O.R. as their guardian ad litem for that purpose. The judgment does not state the eventual outcome of the judicial review.