Man loses court appeal against HSE order to place grandson (3) in care

THE GRANDFATHER of a three-year-old boy has lost his High Court bid to overturn an order placing the child in the care of the…

THE GRANDFATHER of a three-year-old boy has lost his High Court bid to overturn an order placing the child in the care of the HSE. The man and his wife said they wished to care for the child themselves.

The boy is with a foster couple who are related to his mother’s former partner and the HSE had said it considered the child was being well looked after and was happy. The court also heard the child’s mother was unable to care for him.

In his judgment yesterday, Mr Justice John Hedigan said this was “a most tragic case”. While the grandfather’s application was made “with the best of intentions,” he did not have the required legal standing to challenge the care order.

Mr Justice Hedigan noted the grandfather brought the proceedings because he and his wife wished to foster the boy themselves but the HSE had said that was not possible.

READ MORE

He noted the child protection services were contacted when the boy was found to have traces of heroin in his system shortly after birth. This was due to his mother taking the drug during pregnancy.

Efforts to help the mother failed and a relative of the mother’s then partner had agreed to look after the boy. DNA tests had established that the then partner was not the boy’s father and the HSE secured a care order in 2008.

In his proceedings brought against the HSE and the District Court judge who made the care order, the grandfather asked the High Court to quash that order. He also argued the placement of the child with the foster couples under Section 36 of the 1991 Childcare Act was unlawful.

The HSE argued the grandfather did not have the necessary legal standing to bring the case as he was neither the parent nor guardian of the boy.

Mr Justice Hedigan agreed and also said even if the grandfather did have legal standing, if the court granted the orders sought, the result would be the revival of the mother’s parental rights to custody with no transfer of guardianship or custody to the grandfather.

It would be “a great pity” if the strain of the events “led to a breakdown of trust between the parties”, he added. It was in the interest of all concerned, especially the boy, that every effort should be made to restore friendly and co- operative relations.

“Continuing hostility will do nobody any good, least of all the innocent child at the heart of these sad events,” he said.