Child and Family Agency v M.L. (Otherwise G.) & Ors [2019] IECA 109 (12 April 2019)

Child and Family Agency v M.L. (Otherwise G.) & Ors [2019] IECA 109 (12 April 2019)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was entitled on the evidence to find that the statutory threshold for a special care order was met. The evidence established a real and substantial risk to G.'s life by self-harm or suicide, and that less restrictive alternatives were inadequate. The High Court gave due weight to G.'s views and those of other professionals but was not bound by them. The order did not amount to unlawful preventative detention and was proportionate, lawful, and in G.'s best interests. The admission of Professor Kennedy's report was not a material error. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2019] IECA 109
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Child and Family Agency; First Respondent/respondent: M. L. (otherwise G.); Second Respondent/respondent (guardian Ad Litem): Orla Ryan; Appellant/child With Rights of a Party: G.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Child Care/special Care Order Appeal / Appeal From High Court Special Care Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed; special care order affirmed
Legal Topics
Special Care Orders, Child Welfare, Right to Liberty, Constitutional Rights of Children, Threshold for Detention of Minors, European Convention on Human Rights, Assessment of Risk and Welfare, Role of Guardian Ad Litem
Child Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Special Care Orders Child Welfare Right to Liberty Constitutional Rights of Children Threshold for Detention of Minors +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Child and Family Agency

Applicant/respondent

M. L. (otherwise G.)

First Respondent/respondent

Orla Ryan

Second Respondent/respondent (guardian Ad Litem)

G.

Appellant/child With Rights of a Party

Procedural Posture

Child Care/special Care Order Appeal / Appeal From High Court Special Care Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory threshold for a special care order under s.23H Child Care Act 1991 was met
  2. 2 Whether the order failed to protect and vindicate the appellant's constitutional right to liberty
  3. 3 Whether the High Court gave sufficient weight to the views of the child and other professionals opposing special care

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was entitled on the evidence to find that the statutory threshold for a special care order was met. The evidence established a real and substantial risk to G.'s life by self-harm or suicide, and that less restrictive alternatives were inadequate. The High Court gave due weight to G.'s views and those of other professionals but was not bound by them. The order did not amount to unlawful preventative detention and was proportionate, lawful, and in G.'s best interests. The admission of Professor Kennedy's report was not a material error. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; special care order affirmed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The special care order made by the High Court is affirmed.