The Irish High Court has ruled that a homeless woman was wrongly refused legal costs by the District Court after she successfully won a case against the Child and Family Agency attempting to take her new born child into care.
The application for a care order was initially brought before the District Court by Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, after a social worker reported that the baby in question was at risk of suffering from neglect due to the mother’s homeless status. The social worker also stated that allegations had been made against the mother for physical and sexual abuse by her niece and nephew.
In April 2016, the woman in question engaged a solicitor to advise her in proceedings with the Child and Family Agency. The solicitor applied to the Legal Aid board for a legal aid certificate but was informed that the quota for such certificates had been reached for the month. As a result of this the woman and her legal representation were denied aid by the Legal Aid Board.
Despite this, the woman’s legal team continued to act on her behalf due to the serious nature of the situation facing her. Costs incurred included the report issued by a psychologist as to the legitimacy of the claims against the woman by the niece and nephew, which was organised by her solicitor.
Subsequently the Child and Family Agency withdrew the care order application after the woman’s sister agreed to take her and the child in. The mother also agreed to a supervision order and safety plan which had been suggested by the Child and Family Agency. The solicitor then requested that legal costs be paid, however this was opposed by the Tusla, which stated that the case in question was not exceptional. The District Court Judge agreed, also citing the fact that legal aid had not been awarded in assessing whether or not the costs should be awarded.
In the High Court, Justice Flattery stated that the District Court judge should not have taken into account that the woman had been denied legal aid in assessing awarding costs. She stated that it was not something the District Court Judge was entitled to do in exercising their jurisdiction, having regard to prior Supreme Court and High Court rulings on this matter.