M Mc D, (A Child), Re (Approved) [2024] IESC 6 (28 February 2024)

M Mc D, (A Child), Re (Approved) [2024] IESC 6 (28 February 2024)

The Supreme Court held that the Child and Family Agency is under a mandatory statutory duty to apply for special care orders when the statutory criteria are met, regardless of resource constraints. The High Court is likewise required to make special care orders when satisfied that the criteria in s.23H(1)(a)-(h) are fulfilled, as the best interests of the child are paramount and constitutional rights must be vindicated. Resource shortages or internal procedures cannot justify delay or non-compliance. The word 'may' in s.23H is to be interpreted as 'shall' in this context. Mandatory orders (mandamus) are appropriate to compel compliance with these duties.

Citation
[2024] IESC 6
Parties
Applicant/appellant: The Child and Family Agency; First Respondent: M McD; Second Respondent: W McD; Third Respondent, Guardian Ad Litem: Helen Tully; First Respondent (in Related Matter): J B; First Notice Party: D B; Second Notice Party: R B; Third Respondent, Guardian Ad Litem (in Related Matter): Francis O'Callaghan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Orders (mandamus and Special Care Orders)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. High Court orders affirmed.
Legal Topics
Special Care Orders, Statutory Duties of Child Protection Agencies, Judicial Review, Civil Detention of Minors, Interpretation of Statutory Discretion, Best Interests of the Child, Mandamus, Resource Constraints and Statutory Compliance
Child Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Special Care Orders Statutory Duties of Child Protection Agencies Judicial Review Civil Detention of Minors Interpretation of Statutory Discretion +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Child and Family Agency

Applicant/appellant

M McD

First Respondent

W McD

Second Respondent

Helen Tully

Third Respondent, Guardian Ad Litem

J B

First Respondent (in Related Matter)

D B

First Notice Party

R B

Second Notice Party

Francis O'Callaghan

Third Respondent, Guardian Ad Litem (in Related Matter)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Orders (mandamus and Special Care Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was correct to grant mandatory orders compelling the Child and Family Agency (CFA) to apply for special care orders in the absence of available placements
  2. 2 Whether the High Court has discretion to refuse to make a special care order under s.23H of the Child Care Act 1991 when statutory criteria are met
  3. 3 Whether resource constraints (staffing, bed availability) justify non-compliance with statutory duties under the Child Care Act 1991

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Child and Family Agency is under a mandatory statutory duty to apply for special care orders when the statutory criteria are met, regardless of resource constraints. The High Court is likewise required to make special care orders when satisfied that the criteria in s.23H(1)(a)-(h) are fulfilled, as the best interests of the child are paramount and constitutional rights must be vindicated. Resource shortages or internal procedures cannot justify delay or non-compliance. The word 'may' in s.23H is to be interpreted as 'shall' in this context. Mandatory orders (mandamus) are appropriate to compel compliance with these duties.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. High Court orders affirmed.

Orders

  • Mandatory orders (mandamus) compelling the CFA to apply for special care orders in respect of the children affirmed.
  • Special care orders granted for both children, regardless of immediate bed availability.