E.M. v. The Minister for Justice and Equality


Olga Shajaku

In a significant legal decision, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that reverberated through the corridors of child welfare advocacy and legal circles alike. The case in question stemmed from an appeal by the Child and Family Agency (CFA), which found itself at the center of a contentious legal battle concerning the care of two vulnerable teenagers, referred to in court documents simply as M and B.

The crux of the matter lay in the failure of the CFA to fulfill its statutory obligations under the Child Care Act 1991, as amended by the Child Care (Amendment) Act 2011. Despite the clear and pressing need for special care orders for both M and B, the CFA neglected to take the necessary steps to secure such orders. This negligence was brought to light during judicial review proceedings initiated to compel the CFA to discharge its statutory duties.

The history of M and B painted a harrowing picture of neglect, abuse, and behavioral challenges. M had been grappling with dangerous and erratic behaviors, including substance abuse, while B faced developmental and behavioral disorders, including autism spectrum disorder. Both teenagers were deemed to require a safe and secure environment where their complex needs could be addressed comprehensively.

However, despite the evident urgency of the situation, the CFA failed to act decisively. Meetings and conferences were convened, assessments were made, and the conclusion was unequivocal: both M and B required special care orders. Yet, inexplicably, the CFA refrained from making the necessary statutory determinations and applications, leaving the teenagers in a precarious and vulnerable state.

The High Court, presided over by Heslin J., did not mince words in its assessment of the CFA’s actions. Describing the delay and refusal to act as a blatant contravention of legislative intent, the court issued an order of mandamus compelling the CFA to apply for special care orders without further delay.

Subsequent proceedings before Jordan J. reinforced the gravity of the situation. Despite pleas from the CFA citing resource constraints, the court was resolute in its determination to prioritize the welfare of the teenagers. The urgency of the matter, coupled with the clear and present danger to M and B, left little room for debate.

The Supreme Court, in its considered judgment, echoed the sentiments of the lower courts. Justice Hogan, delivering the majority opinion, underscored the inexcusable nature of the CFA’s failure to act, emphasizing the duty imposed by statute to safeguard vulnerable children. While acknowledging the nuanced nature of statutory obligations, the court held firm in its assertion that the welfare of children must remain paramount, irrespective of resource constraints.

Justice Murray, in his concurring opinion, echoed these sentiments, stressing the need for a case-specific approach to legal interpretation. The judgment, while addressing a specific statutory regime, carried broader implications for the protection of vulnerable children and the responsibilities of public bodies entrusted with their care.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling served as a clarion call for accountability and prioritization of the welfare of vulnerable children. It reinforced the principle that statutory duties must be fulfilled without reservation, even in the face of logistical challenges. As the legal battle drew to a close, the spotlight remained firmly fixed on the imperative of safeguarding the most vulnerable members of society, ensuring that their voices are heard and their rights upheld, no matter the obstacles.

For the full case https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/2bd0e600-cc08-45e4-b2cc-a8e58bf44ca4/2024_IESC_3.pdf/pdf#view=fitH


Contact Us