Couple should get Christmas visit to child in care, judge says

A High Court judge has recommended the Child and Family Agency allow a young couple have a visit with their newborn baby, who is in care, on Christmas Day. The recommendation was made by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys following an application by the couple against Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, aimed at quashing interim care orders made in the District Court in respect of their son. None of the parties can be named for legal reasons.

The couple are non-Irish nationals who moved here a short time ago. They say that following the birth of their child at an Irish hospital the infant was taken into care by Tusla on foot of information passed to the agency from social services in the couple’s own country. They claim the orders breach their rights and are seeking to have them quashed.

Yesterday Mr Justice Humphreys granted an ex parte application (one side only represented) by the couple for leave to bring judicial review proceedings against Tusla.

The parents, who are not legally represented, told the judge they have two supervised visits of 1½ hours a week. The father said the visits are usually scheduled for Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.

After they indicated at a District Court hearing that they would seek a judicial review, the visit was moved to a Monday and they were missing that visit because they were in court, he said.

They are due to see their child tomorrow with a next visit scheduled for December 30th. When the judge asked if they would like to see their child on Christmas Day, the father said they would like to see their child “every day”. The judge said he would make a non-binding recommendation that the agency facilitate a visit so the couple could see their child on Christmas Day.

The father also told the court that, after speaking to various people, the couple had concerns about the standard of representation given to applicants by legally aided lawyers.

He said he could not afford the costs of a lawyer and expressed the view that he and his partner might be better off representing themselves. The judge said such concerns were “nonsense”, adding it was not a good idea for people to take legal advice from “the man in a pub”. The case raised serious and “very important” issues, and the couple should consider obtaining lawyers to represent them, he said.

After the couple said they would seek lawyers, the judge said he was making a formal recommendation that the Legal Aid Board give priority to the couple’s application. The matter will return to court in January.