The District Court admitted statements made by a 15-year-old child to a social worker and a Guardian ad Litem in proceedings concerning applications to extend interim care orders for four children.
The Health Service Executive (HSE) and the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) applied under section 23 of the Children Act 1997 to have the statements admitted as hearsay evidence. The applications were heard on notice to the parties on 5 February 2013. The source identifies the children only as Child 1, Child 2, Child 3 and Child 4, and the respondents as “EL & AL”.
The HSE relied on statements Child 1 made to a social worker on 23 and 24 January 2013; the GAL relied on statements made to the GAL on 22 January. The HSE submitted, supported by social worker evidence, that calling the child would cause distress and could harm an already fragile relationship with the mother. The GAL submitted that it was not in the child’s best interests to attend and be cross-examined. The mother’s counsel argued that the child could give evidence by video link, and that the mother had a right to test the evidence. The father’s counsel opposed calling the child and supported admitting the statements.
The court said section 23 required notice and particulars of the statements, and consideration of the child’s welfare, the interests of justice and possible unfairness to the parties. It found that the notices and schedules met the statutory requirements and that the required enquiry had been carried out.
For both applications, the court found that it would not be in the child’s welfare interests to give oral evidence during the interim proceedings. It also found that the child’s welfare outweighed any potential injustice to the mother, and admitted the scheduled statements in their entirety. This ruling concerned admission of the statements; it did not decide the underlying applications to extend the interim care orders.
The court said the statements largely concerned an incident on 17 January 2013 and were made several days later. In assessing their weight, it noted they did not involve multiple examples of hearsay, appeared to present a low motive to misrepresent or conceal, and were edited accounts prepared in collaboration with the social worker and the GAL. The judgment does not state the outcome of the interim care applications.