A woman has launched a High Court action aimed at quashing a lower court’s decision to place two of her children in State care.
In her action, the woman claims the children were placed in care because of the Child and Family Agency’s concerns she was causing them to be ill, that she shouted at them, made them do inappropriate housework at inappropriate times and subjected them to inappropriate forms of discipline.
By order of the High Court, neither she nor her family can be identified by the media. The woman has denied the allegations, which she described as “spurious”. She has said her children were placed in care without due cause and in an unnecessary and precipitous way.
She has also claimed social workers misrepresented matters to the courts when obtaining the care orders. The care orders were made by the District Court four years ago. They were appealed to the Circuit Court, which heard the case in late 2013.
However, in proceedings which came before Ms Justice Mary Faherty at the High Court yesterday, the woman claimed she and her lawyers had been unable to obtain either a recording or a written copy of the judgment.
Lack of recording
The Circuit Court judge who heard the appeal delivered an ex-tempore judgment orally. While it was accepted that the judge dismissed her appeal, the parties in court were unable to obtain a verbatim note of the ruling. There was no digital audio recording operating in the courtroom that day. While it might have been assumed by all the parties at the time that the digital audio recording system was operating, she said there was no independent complete record of the judgment.
This situation, she claimed, had prejudiced both her and her children’s rights to fair procedures, as well as their rights under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
In her judicial review proceedings against the Child and Family Agency, the woman is seeking various declarations and orders, including one having the care order quashed and the proceedings reheard.
Represented by Fergal Kavanagh SC and Bernice McKeever, the woman said she and her children were entitled to know the rationale and the reasons why the Circuit Court made the orders it did.
Counsel said the parties involved in the case had been unable to agree with each other about what the judge found or the reasons behind such findings. Efforts to obtain a written judgment had not proved possible, counsel said.
Reuniting family
Counsel said the lack of the judgment had resulted in insurmountable difficulties for his client in advancing her case, where she sought to reunite her family. In the circumstances, counsel said, the matter should be reheard.
Permission to bring the challenge was granted, on an ex-parte basis, by Ms Justice Faherty. The judge made the matter returnable to a date in November.