Child and Family Agency failed to meet lawful requirements in application for special care order

Judicial review – rights of the child – child in the care of the Child and Family Agency - deterioration in his behaviour leading to an application for directions in the District Court – Minister determined that he has reasonable cause to believe that he requires special care - behaviour poses a real and substantial risk of harm to his life, health, safety, development or welfare and provision of continued care to the applicant other than special care, or treatment and mental health services will not adequately address that behaviour – CFA refused to make determination - no place available in any secure unit – proceedings issued - complaining of the failure of the C.F.A. to abide by its statutory obligation - Court that the refusal of the Service Director to make a determination in accordance as to whether the child required special care was unlawful - made a formal determination – no application to the High Court for a special care order – issued proceedings – parameter of the obligation on the CFA to apply for the special care order – mootness - now manifest that he could not be placed in special care - court does not decide hypothetical or moot points of law unless there is a special jurisdiction or in exceptional cases for compelling reasons - child care proceedings are ongoing – statutory interpretation - deliberate and intentional policy of the respondent not to take any steps to apply to the court as per the mandate incorporated within statute is inconsistent with the meaning of that mandate - failure to take any step whatsoever in fulfilment of the mandated requirement of the legislation for a period of nineteen days without any timescale or explanation is unlawful.