An application for an interim care order was adjourned when the hearing was delayed due to the father needing medical attention.
When the case was initially called the social workers, the father and their respective legal representatives attempted to reach an agreement whereby the children would be placed with a relative as a private family arrangement. The court called the case on several occasions seeking updates and on each occasion was told that attempts had been continuing to try and settle the matter.
Following lunch, the court called the case again, and was informed by legal representatives that during lunch the father had had a medical episode in the neighbourhood of the court that he had to be assessed by ambulance staff. and might require hospital assessment. The solicitor stated that they would wait for further information.
Following a further wait the father was in a position to return to court, and communicated that he was returning to court from hospital.
The solicitor for the Child and Family Agency stated that there were no family alternatives available as a placement for the children and social workers were concerned that without the application proceeding that the children would be at risk. The solicitor also stated that the only placement the agency had at that time was an out of hours placement in another county. Solicitors for the agency stated that their case would be shorter now, as the home school liaison officer who was due to give evidence had to remain at the school to supervise the children as they had finished school and no one could state where they were going.
The solicitor for the father made an application to adjourn the hearing based on fair procedures, saying only a short time had been available to them to receive and review reports and to take instructions from their client. The solicitor stated the father was willing to engage with any safety plan the agency needed to put in place during the period of the adjournment. The solicitor further stated that a late application after a medical incident was unfair to the father.
The solicitor for the Child and Family Agency replied that there had been sufficient time to take instructions, that support plans provided in the past had not resulted in safety for these children and that the application proceeding was the best way to ensure the children’s safety.
The judge rose to consult with the court registrar. When she returned she said that she would not grant the adjournment and stated that in cases such as these the main concern was always the children. The judge stated that there was a balance to be struck between the fair procedure rights of the respondent and the constitutional rights of the children.
The judge held that as the children’s welfare was to be paramount than the case should proceed. The judge then stated that while they were happy to proceed with the case, as it had got to the end of the day the Courts Service were not able to facilitate the hearing that day.
The matter was listed for the following day for hearing.