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)

In the context of the Child Care Act 1991, resource constraints or staffing difficulties faced by the Child and Family Agency do not justify refusal to grant mandatory orders compelling compliance with statutory duties to protect vulnerable children; the statutory scheme does not envisage such considerations as relevant, and judicial discretion must be exercised within the confines of the statute.

Citation
[2024] IESC 6
Parties
Applicant/appellant: The Child and Family Agency; First Respondent/first Notice Party: P McD; Second Respondent/second Notice Party: W McD; Third Respondent, Guardian Ad Litem/next Friend: Helen Tully; First Respondent/first Notice Party: D B; Second Respondent/second Notice Party: R B; Third Respondent, Guardian Ad Litem/next Friend: Francis O'Callaghan; Respondent (suing Through Guardian Ad Litem): M McD (a minor); Respondent (suing Through Guardian Ad Litem): J B (a minor)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Supreme Court Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Orders Regarding Statutory Duties Under the Child Care Act 1991
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court orders affirmed.
Legal Topics
Statutory Duties of Public Bodies, Mandamus, Judicial Discretion, Resource Constraints and Statutory Compliance, Child Protection
Child Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Statutory Duties of Public Bodies Mandamus Judicial Discretion Resource Constraints and Statutory Compliance Child Protection

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Child and Family Agency

Applicant/appellant

P McD

First Respondent/first Notice Party

W McD

Second Respondent/second Notice Party

Helen Tully

Third Respondent, Guardian Ad Litem/next Friend

D B

First Respondent/first Notice Party

R B

Second Respondent/second Notice Party

Francis O'Callaghan

Third Respondent, Guardian Ad Litem/next Friend

M McD (a minor)

Respondent (suing Through Guardian Ad Litem)

J B (a minor)

Respondent (suing Through Guardian Ad Litem)

Procedural Posture

Supreme Court Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Orders Regarding Statutory Duties Under the Child Care Act 1991

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether resource constraints can justify refusal to grant mandatory orders compelling the Child and Family Agency to comply with statutory duties under the Child Care Act 1991
  2. 2 Scope of judicial discretion in granting orders of mandamus against public bodies under a detailed statutory scheme
  3. 3 Interpretation of s. 23F(8) and s. 23H of the Child Care Act 1991

Ratio Decidendi

In the context of the Child Care Act 1991, resource constraints or staffing difficulties faced by the Child and Family Agency do not justify refusal to grant mandatory orders compelling compliance with statutory duties to protect vulnerable children; the statutory scheme does not envisage such considerations as relevant, and judicial discretion must be exercised within the confines of the statute.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court orders affirmed.

Orders

  • Mandatory orders compelling the Child and Family Agency to comply with statutory duties under the Child Care Act 1991 affirmed.