Court grants one-day interim care order extension while noting Section 32 age inquiry withdrawn due to lack of evidence.

AN CHÚIRT DÚICHE THE DISTRICT COURT DUBLIN METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COURT

THE CHILDCARE ACT 1991 SECTION 17 & 32

IN THE MATTER OF W (a child)

THE CHILD AND FAMILY AGENCY Applicant

-and-

YY Guardian ad Litem

Decision of Judge Conor Fottrell delivered on the 18th of June 2026

Introduction:

1. The application before the Court today is to extend the Interim Care Order under section 17 of the Childcare Act (“the Act”) in relation to the child.

2. The Child and Family Agency (“the Agency”) had requested the Court to undertake an inquiry into the age of the child under section 32 of the Act.

3. The child is in care of the Agency under an Interim Care Order granted by the Court on the 22nd of October 2025.

4. The child was named as a respondent in the section 32 inquiry and had his own independent legal representation for the purposes of that matter. He was represented by a solicitor and counsel and attended each day of that hearing along with the services of an interpreter.

5. There are no parents listed as respondents to the proceedings as it is believed his father is deceased and his mother is residing outside the jurisdiction and her exact whereabouts and contact details are unknown.

6. A court-appointed Guardian ad Litem represented the child’s interests at the section

17 proceedings. The Guardian ad Litem was represented by a solicitor and counsel.

7. The child and Guardian ad Litem are referred to as W and YY respectively. The report of the decision has been anonymised to ensure that the rights of the child as a litigant, in an in-camera hearing under the Act, are protected. In this way, the public interest in favour of publication can be satisfied without any identification of any of the parties, while also complying with the requirements of the Act.

8. The Section 32 inquiry was heard over two days in May 2026 with the Court hearing from seven witnesses. A further two days had been set down for hearing in June but did not proceed when the Agency withdrew their request for the Section 32 inquiry.

Background:

9. The Court understands that the child was removed from his home in Somalia by a militant group and it is believed that he spent a few years moving through several different countries.

10. It appears he suffered very significant trauma and abuse during this time and arrived in this country unaccompanied by any family members in July 2025. He presented at the International Protection Offices with no travel documentation.

11. There was confusion around his age, but he was deemed a minor with a date of birth of the 20th of June 2008 noted and he was transferred to the care of the Agency.

12. He was initially placed in a hotel for a few days before moving to two separate Special Emergency Arrangements (SEAs). At the time, he was accommodated under section 5 of the Act where no other suitable accommodation was deemed to be available to him.

13. In August 2025 the Agency completed an assessment titled “Eligibility for Services for Separated Children Seeking International Protection” which concluded that he was a minor under 18 years of age and, as such, he was eligible for their services.

14. The child remained accommodated in an SEA under section 5 of the Act for a few months.

15. He was then arrested in October 2025 following a serious incident. He spent several days in hospital and was subsequently detained in Oberstown Children’s Detention Campus, where he remains to date.

16. The Agency applied for and were granted an Emergency Care Order under section 13 of the Act on the 15th of October 2025.

17. At time of the application the Agency indicated to the Court that the child was aged

17 years with a date of birth of the 20th of June 2008 noted on the pleadings lodged with the application in court.

18. A subsequent application under section 17(1) of the Act for an Interim Care Order was granted on the 22nd of October 2025. The Interim Care Order has been extended on approximately eleven occasions since under section 17(2) of the 1991 Act.

Section 32 – Child Care Act 1991:

19. Section 32 of the 1991 Act provides that:

“In any application for an order under Part III, IV or VI, the court shall make due inquiry as to the age of the person to whom the application relates and the age presumed or declared by the court to be the age of that person shall, until the contrary is proved, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person”.

20. There is no formal application before the court under section 32 of the Act, with the Court simply being requested by the Agency to conduct an inquiry into the age of the child.

21. This section of the Act is not regularly used and only arises where the Court is asked to make an inquiry as to the age of a young person where there is a dispute or uncertainty around their age.

22. There is limited judicial authority on Section 32 inquiries, with most decisions taking place in District Court care proceedings which are usually not published.

23. The Agency had brought applications under the section 17 of the Act from October 2025 through to May 2026 to extend the order placing this child in their care.

24. On the 27th of January 2026 the Agency’s application to extend the Interim Care Order was refused by a judge of the District Court who expressed the view at the time that he was not a child and therefore the Court could no longer extend the orders.

25. Following a judicial review of that decision the Interim Care Order application was brought back before the District Court and extended on several occasions, and the child remains under an Interim Care Order to date.

26. The Agency conducted a further updated “Eligibility for Services” assessment in March 2026, which as the court understands, concluded the Agency does not believe he is a child under 18 years of age.

27. That decision was subject to an appeal process, but the decision was upheld with the Agencies updated assessment concluding that the young person was not a child.

28. In March 2026 the Agency requested the District Court to undertake a Section 32 inquiry into the age of the child, with dates originally set in April. The matter was initially adjourned to allow the child to obtain his own independent legal representation for the purposes of the inquiry.

29. The inquiry did not proceed in April after the child was not produced in Court and further dates were then provided in May.

30. The Section 32 hearing commenced on the 20th and 21st of May 2026 with the court hearing from seven witnesses. At the conclusion of the second day of hearing it was clear that further dates would be required, and two further hearing dates were set for June.

31. The matter was mentioned before the court for case management purposes in early June and to extend the Interim Care Order under section 17 of the Act.

32. On the 8th of June 2026 the Agency filed a notice of re-entry to list the Section 32 inquiry before the Court indicating that they were now withdrawing the matter.

33. The case came before the Court on the 10th of June 2026 when the Agency formally withdrew their Section 32 inquiry request and vacated the two hearing dates in June.

Conclusion:

34. The Court acknowledges the Agency has faced significant increased demands on its resources from cases of unaccompanied minors, which often involve young people who have suffered complex traumatic experiences.

35. This case was before the District Court on thirty-five occasions since October 2025 including the Section 32 inquiry on ten occasions, with two full days at hearing.

36. The Court outlined to the parties at the conclusion of the matter that this case had taken up a very significant amount of court time and resources, not to mention the costs involved.

37. The Section 32 inquiry process is not regularly used in the District Court. It is an unusual request, and the Act is silent regarding how an age inquiry should be undertaken.

38. Having spent considerable time dealing with this matter over the past few weeks I feel that the Courts may not necessarily be best placed to make a determination regarding the age of young person where there is uncertainty regarding their age.

39. However, Section 32 of the Child Care Act 1991 provides the District Court shall make due inquiry into the age of a person to whom the application relates, and the age declared by the court shall be deemed to be the true age of the person until the contrary is proven.

40. In this case the Court was asked to undertake an inquiry into the age of a child without having the updated age assessment which the Agency had recently completed being put before the Court in evidence.

41. This left the Court in a very difficult position of being asked to determine the age of a child without having all the relevant, necessary information and evidence before the Court from the Agency who requested the inquiry.

42. While ultimately the inquiry request was withdrawn, it is likely that, there will be further requests made of the District Court to undertake a section 32 inquiry where a young person’s age maybe uncertain.

43. With that in mind, in future, when there is a request for the Court to conduct an inquiry under section 32 of the Act, the Court believes that the Agency should have completed in advance a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary age assessment which should obviously be put before the Court in evidence.

44. Otherwise, it is extremely difficult for the court to make an informed, considered

decision and ultimately a determination regarding the age of a young person.

45. Finally, the application before the Court today to extend Interim Care Order was granted for one day to the 19th of June 2026. This now concludes the matter before the Court.

46. In terms of any reporting of this case nothing is to be reported or broadcast which would lead members of the public to identify the child or any of the parties involved in the Child Care proceedings as stipulated by the Courts and Civil Law Act.

Judge Conor Fottrell. Judge of the District Court 18th of June 2026