Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Court critical of Child and Family Agency despite dismissing action against it
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court dismisses the plaintiff's case on procedural grounds, finding that plenary proceedings were not the appropriate mechanism for invoking the contempt jurisdiction of the court. Despite this, the court declines to award costs against the plaintiff, who sought to compel the Child and Family Agency (CFA) to comply with a special care order for her son. The court criticises the CFA for not engaging constructively with the plaintiff's concerns and failing to provide a bed for the child, whose situation was deteriorating. The court also awards legal costs to the guardian ad litem against the CFA, emphasising the importance of the guardian's role in the proceedings.
Child and Family Agency (CFA) - Special care order - Contempt of court - Procedural grounds - Plenary proceedings - Attachment and committal - Guardian ad litem (GAL) - Costs award - Non-compliance - Child welfare - Presumption of innocence - Child Care Act 1991 - Legal costs adjudication - Constructive engagement - Rule of law
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
