D McA v A Health and Social Care Trust and BT v A Health and Social Care Trust
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Keegan J |
| Judgment Date | 11 August 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] NIFam 7 |
| Court | Family Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 11 August 2016 |
1
Neutral Citation [2016] NIFam 7 Ref:
KEE10033
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
11/8/2016
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
FAMILY DIVISION
________
IN THE MATTER OF APPEALS FROM THE FAMILY CARE CENTRE
SITTING AT BELFAST
Between:
D McA
Appellant;
-and-
A HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE TRUST
Respondent.
Between:
BT
Appellant;
-and-
A HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE TRUST
Respondent.
(Refusal of expert: appeal)
________
KEEGAN J
Introduction
[1] The identities of the parties have been anonymised in order to protect the
interests of the children to whom this judgment relates. Nothing must be published
or reported which allows these children or any related adults to be identified in any
way.
[2] These cases are two appeals from decisions made by the Recorder His Honour
Judge McFarland in the Family Care Centre in Belfast. I heard the two cases together
by agreement of all parties given that they raise a common point of law in relation to
2
appeals. In the first case the appeal is brought by D McA in relation to a decision
made on 31 May 2016. That was a decision in the context of care proceedings
whereby the judge refused the mother’s application for an expert namely Mr Ken
Wilson, an independent social worker. In the second case BT also brings an appeal
from a decision of 19 May 2016 whereby the judge refused the mother’s application
for a second expert assessment by Dr Jennifer Galbraith, a consultant clinical
psychologist with an expertise in learning disability. The BT case is somewhat
different in complexion given that BT has been found to be incompetent and is
represented by the Official Solicitor. In both cases the children are living with
relatives and the plans are for kinship care.
Background to D McA’s case
[3] The subject child in this case is JL who was born on 13 June 2014 and his
parents are D McA and ML. On 1 June 2015 this child was placed initially with his
paternal grandfather by reason of Trust concerns about the parents. This placement
was with the mother’s consent. On 3 June 2015 the child was placed with his
grandmother whereupon a viability assessment was undertaken in relation to her.
This was not successful and so on 7 July 2015 the child was moved back to his
paternal grandfather’s care on a voluntary basis. The mother withdrew her consent
to the placement on 1 September 2015 and this resulted in the Trust bringing
proceedings for a care order. Agreement was reached to continue the placement on
a voluntary basis pending the proceedings being adjudicated upon. The child
therefore remains with his paternal grandfather and his partner.
[4] The mother D McA has subsequently given birth to another child JX who was
born on 14 March 2016. That child is also subject to proceedings brought by the
Trust however the court decided that the proceedings should be separate and so
they were not consolidated. There are some issues in relation to that child’s case
including issues of paternity. However, it appears that the mother entered a
residential placement with the child and that the child remains in her care, having
recently moved from the placement into the community under a contract plan. The
case in relation to JL is therefore different from that of the other child JX.
[5] In relation to JL’s case, the mother was assessed by the Family Centre at
Belfast. This was prior to JX being born. Admission took place on 24 September
2015 and a report was provided on 2 February 2016. That report highlighted
concerns about the mother. Further work was also identified for the mother which
included Sure Start and Women’s Aid and it was contended that the mother did not
engage with those services. However, she did engage with services following the
birth of JX. There were a number of issues and concerns regarding the father noted
in the report. It appears that he suffered a serious and significant brain injury in
December 2015 and that required hospitalisation and rehabilitative care. The father
was only discharged from hospital in June 2016 and so the father did not take part in
this appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial