Nine of 10 children taken from parents over alleged neglect or abuse

Ray Managh

Nine children from a family of 10 have been taken from their parents on the basis of alleged neglect or abuse, the High Court heard on Monday.

They are being held on foot of an interim care order granted by a District Court judge in one of the most northern counties of the State, Ms Justice Emily Egan was told.

Barrister Colman Fitzgerald SC, in an application for orders directing a High Court inquiry into the validity of their detention by the Child and Family Agency, said the interim care order had been made by the District Court in May last and renewed on at least one occasion since then.

Mr Fitzgerald, who appeared with Stephen Brittain BL and Padraig Langsch of Langsch and Cunnane Solicitors, for the parents of the children, said they were asking the court for an order of habeas corpus and to direct a High Court inquiry, under Article 40 of the Constitution, into the lawfulness of the detention of each child.

Mr Langsch, in an affidavit on behalf of the family, said the District Court interim care order had been renewed on the basis that Garda interviews with the children had been ongoing at the time.

He said the District Court had also been told that a parental capacity assessment had been taking place and the lower court judge had decided the Child and Family Agency had achieved the necessary threshold under the Child Care Act whereby the Agency was entitled to intervene “where there was reasonable cause to believe that a child was being neglected or abused".

Mr Langsch said the mother of the children had told the District Court, and currently affirmed, that the children had never been neglected, mistreated or abused.

Mr Fitzgerald said the legal team for the parents and children wished to show to the court that there had been a clear interference of the State in the Constitutional role of the family.

Judge Egan said she did not think she could make an Article 40 order based on the papers before the court. She had a concern that there was a District Court order, which was valid on its face, in being since May last.

She said she was not convinced the matter was sufficiently urgent or that the court could, for procedural reasons, make a habeas corpus order. She felt the most appropriate procedure would be by way of judicial review of the District Court order, and it was up to the family’s legal team to consider if it wished to bring any further application to the court.

Under the law Information that might lead to identifying the children or their parents may not be published.