Judge's order on children challenged

The Health Service Executive has brought High Court proceedings claiming that a judge's continuing ban on three children in care being separated is jeopardising the children's welfare.

The HSE contends the continuing reviews by Judge Catherine Murphy of the Circuit Court, who has been involved with the children's case since 2002, are an interference with the HSE's statutory obligations, are not in the best interests of the children and could place at risk a proposed foster placement for one of them.

The application relates to three children aged 10, 14 and 15, whose welfare had become "particularly urgent" after a serious incident in 2000 which resulted in the death of another child (not a member of the family).

Mr Justice Michael Peart granted leave to the HSE to seek, in judicial review proceedings against Judge Murphy, requiring her to determine an application by the HSE regarding the three children. The judge heard the application on June 30th and the HSE claims she was asked to give her decision at an early date, but has failed or refused to do so.

In an affidavit, a social work team leader said the HSE has been involved with the family since 1990 because of concerns about the children's care, hygiene and school attendance. Their father died in 1999 and concerns grew after his death. They had been in the interim care of the HSE since 2001 and were now in the long-term care of the HSE under care orders made in early 2002.

A fourth child born to their mother had been placed in care separate to her three half-siblings. The mother had not sought their return, the team leader said.

Interim care orders were renewed until March 2002 when care orders under the Child Care Act were made by Judge Murphy, subject to certain directions, including that the children not be separated pending further review.

Judge Murphy had made further orders in the case in 2002 and 2003, including a prohibition on fostering. In February 2004, the HSE asked for the direction on fostering to be lifted as a matter of urgency.

In a full judgment in August 2004, Judge Murphy made orders that the children were to live together and were not to be separated without a prior court order.

In September 2005, she directed the children were not to be separated pending the conclusion of a fostering assessment and the search for one foster family for all three children. The judge also met the children after that.

In another judgment in December 2005, she again directed the children were not to be separated.

In May and June 2006, the HSE made written and oral submissions relating to the continuing case reviews in circumstances where a care order had been granted to the HSE and also asked the judge to lift the ban on the separation of the children. On June 30th, a social work report was also given to the judge, stating that a suitable foster placement had been found for one of the children and that the HSE wished to begin the fostering process immediately, including introducing the child to the prospective foster parents, but believed it would be detrimental to begin this while the ban on the children being separated remained.