In spite of Judge Mary Fahy appropriately placing severe restrictions on media coverage of the case of the 13-year-old pregnant girl, it now seems - from unofficial reports - that the judge has decided that the girl may remain in health board care and, at the same time, travel to the UK for an abortion.
This decision is, predictably, under appeal by her parents, with the aid of self-styled "pro-life" groups.
The right of a child in the care of the State to have his or her rights vindicated, separately from his/her parents, was at the centre of last week's legal battle. The crucial question was whether being in care actually had reduced her rights and posed an insurmountable obstacle to exercising the right to travel.
Unless a superior court overturns Judge Fahy's decision, it appears that the girl will be allowed to have an abortion, facilitated - perhaps at arm's length - by a State agency. Should this prove to be the final outcome of this case, it will create a significant piece of social and legal history.
Leaving aside the issue of abortion, difficult as it may be to do so, this case may yet mark an important milestone in the development of children's rights generally in this State. Up to now, when conflict between children's interests and parental rights arose in legal proceedings, it was generally the parents who won out.
The report of the Kilkenny Incest Investigation pointed out that "The very high emphasis given to the rights of the family in the Constitution may consciously or unconsciously be interpreted as giving a higher value to the rights of parents over children". The inquiry team went on to recommend that "The Constitution should contain a specific and overt declaration of the rights of born children".
In calling for separate constitutional provisions for "born children", the Kilkenny inquiry team was pointing out that, at birth, children lose a certain amount of constitutional protection because they have no explicitly stated constitutional rights of their own.
The reasoning behind the need for such a specific clause in the Constitution was to get around the "competing rights" scenario that arises constantly in child care proceedings. If such a provision existed in the Constitution, this would ensure that the interests of children really would come first in legal disputes.
This issue was also examined by the Law Reform Commission last year in its report on the Family Courts, when it pointed out that "The competing rights of parents, especially where serious allegations had been made against one or both, must be respected . . . the child also has rights which he or she may wish to assert independently in the proceedings".
It would appear that in this case the independence of the child's rights has been vindicated and, if subsequently upheld, the "paramountcy principle" (that the best interests of the child should be paramount) will have gained an important foothold in previously hostile territory.
In the event that a superior court overrules Judge Fahy and finds for the parents, this will be a very strong signal to the Government that as well as considering a "profoetus" amendment to the Constitution, it should also work towards the implementation of the Kilkenny inquiry's proposed "pro-child" amendment.
A crucial feature of this case has been the effectiveness of the independent legal representation afforded to the child by Section 25 of the 1991 Child Care Act. Before the implementation of this section last year, children were not entitled to legal representation separately from their parents.
It appears from reports that the arguments in this case which held sway were those of the child's counsel, Mr Gerard Durcan SC, a well-respected barrister in family law matters. Without this independent legal input it is conceivable that a quite different decision might have been made. The adversarial nature of our legal system works against those who are not legally represented.
One can argue that some of the difficulties surrounding this case have sprung from the fact that being in State care tends to make a child appear to be "public property". It can be suggested that this was what caused the blocking of the right to travel and also influenced intrusive media reporting, and may indeed have also influenced Youth Defence choosing to involve itself.
Children in care come from the most marginalised of families. They cannot, for example, employ "handlers" to keep outsiders at bay. Luckily, in this instance, at least this child has had top-class legal representation, which appears to have convinced one judge, at least, of her right to independence before the law.
Kieran McGrath is editor of Irish Social Worker