Dublin District Court adjourned a full care order application concerning a young teenage boy after the mother’s barrister and solicitor came off record. The judge made an order under section 18.6 of the Child Care Act 1991 directing that the child remain in the care of the Child and Family Agency (CFA) until the case was heard in January. The matter was listed some weeks later to clarify the mother’s intentions regarding legal representation.
The solicitor for the CFA told the court that the Agency anticipated calling four witnesses over two days. He indicated that his application was subject to a preliminary matter raised by his colleagues.
The legal representative for the father said her client consented to the making of a full care order for two years. She also noted that she may have a preliminary application.
The mother and guardian ad litem (GAL) were both legally represented. However, the mother’s barrister applied to come off record both for himself and for the mother’s solicitors. Without breaching legal privilege, he told the court that he could not be satisfied that the instructions he was receiving were reliable. He said he could not present the mother’s case without acting unethically, placing him in an impossible professional position.
The judge described it as an “untenable position for counsel.”
The mother’s lawyer said that he had attempted to hold a consultation with the mother, but she had not taken up the appointment. He had appeared for her on three previous occasions, while the solicitors had acted for her for over a year.
The judge granted the application for both counsel and solicitor to come off record.
The solicitor for the CFA then stated that in the absence of legal representation for the mother, the hearing would need to be adjourned to allow her obtain advice. He said it was necessary to establish whether the mother intended to represent herself or instruct new lawyers.
He told the court there was “a substantial booklet of evidence and material” relating to the child, including reports from the Agency, the GAL and expert witnesses. Time would be required for any new legal team to consider that material. If the mother were to represent herself, it would also be necessary to redact parts of the booklet and arrange a facility for her to view the documents in the CFA offices.
The lawyer for the father noted that he wished the matter to proceed as expeditiously as possible.
The judge called the mother to give evidence on her intentions. She said she was “quite happy to represent myself”, but also open to obtaining legal representation. The judge strongly advised her to seek a lawyer, saying it would be “far preferable” for her and that she should contact the Legal Aid Board. The mother replied: “OK, OK.” She said the matter had been ongoing for more than a year and that she wished to have it concluded.
The CFA solicitor noted that expert witnesses had busy schedules and asked the court to consider fixing a return date. He suggested a period of four weeks to allow the mother time to decide on representation and for the Agency to make the necessary arrangements.
The solicitor for the CFA applied for an order under section 18(6) of the Child Care Act. He explained that the provision allowed the court, between the issuing of a care order application and its determination, to make directions for the care of the child. He said it was important to make such an order given the length of time the proceedings had been ongoing.
The judge asked whether the proposed four-week date was for setting the matter down for hearing. The CFA solicitor confirmed that it was. The father’s lawyer indicated that this was in order and said she had instructions to ask whether the father’s private law application for guardianship could proceed that day. The judge replied that this would not be appropriate when the mother was unrepresented and said the mother needed to be given the application and an opportunity to consider it. The judge said both matters should be heard together, as the issues overlapped significantly.
The father’s lawyer asked whether the guardianship application could be heard on the mention date. The judge felt this was “a bit optimistic,” noting that the mother might still decide to represent herself.
The CFA solicitor commented that the court was being “very indulgent of the mother,” and emphasised that the matters must proceed on the next date. He asked that this be noted on the papers.
The judge set the matter down for mention to confirm whether the mother had secured legal representation or would represent herself.
The registrar told the court that the first available hearing date was in January, and the CFA solicitor said it would be prudent to reserve an additional half day, given the number of witnesses. The CFA solicitor applied for an order to remain in force until then.
Pointing out that the mother was now without representation and had been advised to seek legal assistance, the judge said that “with some reluctance” the matter would be adjourned to allow the mother obtain legal representation. She ordered that the child’s care and custody remain with the CFA until the hearing of the full application in January.
The judge noted that the proceedings had “been going on for many years.” She set the full care order hearing for January, with the guardianship application brought by the father adjourned to the day after.