A couple whose infant daughter was placed in emergency care soon after birth due to allegedly “unexplained” significant bruising to her head and upper body have lost a High Court challenge over that order.
The parents complained they were given insufficient time to respond after the Child and Family Agency informed them in summer 2015 it intended to apply the same day for the emergency care order.
The order was sought after a public health nurse called an ambulance after noting allegedly significant bruising to the six-week-old baby’s upper body and head.
The child was taken to hospital where a paediatric consultant described bruising on the left shoulder muscle and left lower arm, left side of the chest and left temple area. A CT scan of the baby’s head was normal as was a renal ultrasound scan.
The consultant concluded the cause of the injury was “likely non-accidental” and had not been satisfactorily explained by the child’s carers.
The agency was notified and interviewed the parents. Five days after her hospital admission, the child was considered fit for discharge but it was agreed she would remain there pending assessment of her welfare by the agency.
Repeated attempts
Four days later, the agency informed the child’s father it would be seeking an order that afternoon. The parents sought a solicitor and got an appointment with one at 3pm.
The agency said it made repeated attempts to contact the parents from about 2pm when neither were in court. The matter proceeded ex parte (one side represented) at about 3pm and the district judge made an eight-day order, which involved placing the baby with her maternal grandmother.
Shortly after the hearing concluded and after the agency side had left, the parents and their solicitor arrived at court and complained about the matter proceeding without them.
The judge adjourned the matter to the next morning, heard both sides and refused to vacate the order. The baby was discharged into her grandmother’s care.
Two days later, the parents went to the High Court. Their application for an inquiry into the legality of the child’s detention by the agency was refused but they were given leave to pursue the matter via judicial review.
After the order expired, the district court granted an eight-day interim care order. When the parents later undertook to move in with the grandmother and care for the child there, the agency secured a six-month supervision order with the effect the baby was no longer under its care.
Judicial review
Following a further child protection review conference held by the agency, it was decided early last year that the baby no longer needed a child protection plan because the risk of significant harm had been addressed.
The agency told the parents the infant’s record on the child protection notification system would be changed to “inactive”, meaning she was previously at risk of harm and had a child protection plan in the past.
In his High Court judgment refusing judicial review, Mr Justice Seamus Noonan ruled the case was now moot or pointless as the order expired eight days after it was made and it had no effect afterwards on other orders or any future proceedings.
Given that finding, it was unnecessary to address other issues raised, including the parents’ complaints about inclusion of their names on the system until their child turns 18, he said. That complaint was entirely unconnected to the order proceedings before the district court, he added.
