Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
      This case concerns the applicant�s challenge to various Orders of the District and Circuit Courts between 2015 and 2020. Broadly, the Orders concern the applicant�s access to her four grandchildren, where a Care Order was made in 2015 in relation to the four children, removing them from the care of their mother, who is the applicant�s daughter. The applicant represented herself in these proceedings.
      The four children in question have been in the care of the respondent since 10 July 2015 on foot of Interim and Emergency Care Orders (�ECO�s�) as well as a Care Order (the date of which was not provided in the course of these proceedings) made under sections 13, 17 and 18 of the Child Care Act 1991 (the �1991 Act�). The applicant was not in loco parentis in respect of the children and was not a respondent in the childcare proceedings.
      In bringing these proceedings, per her Statement of Grounds, the applicant seeks to challenge five separate decisions of the District Court and one decision of the Circuit Court. Chronologically, the reliefs sought are as follows;
-           A declaration that the Emergency Care Order of 10 July 2015 infringed her constitutional rights to her good name and fair procedures.
-           An Order of certiorari of the Order of District Judge Coughlan of 21 September 2017 prohibiting the applicant from contacting the guardian ad litem appointed to represent the views of her grandchildren.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.