District Court opines on age inquiry process

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] IEDC 6
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  District Court
• Judge:
  Judge Conor Fottrell

Delivering judgment for the District Court, Judge Conor Fottrell advised that “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. 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.”

Background

W was removed from his home in Somalia by a militant group and spent a number of years moving through several different countries, suffering significant trauma and abuse. He arrived in Ireland unaccompanied by family members in July 2025, and presented at the International Protection Offices without travel documentation.

While there was some confusion around his age, he was deemed a minor with a date of birth of 20 June 2008 and was transferred into the care of the Child and Family Agency. He was accommodated under s.5 of the Child Care Act 1991 where no other suitable accommodation was deemed to be available to him.

In August 2025, the Agency concluded that W was a minor and as such, was eligible for its services.

Following a serious incident in October 2025, W was arrested following a hospital stay and was subsequently detained in Oberstown Children’s Detention Campus.

The Agency was granted an Emergency Care Order under s.13 of the Act on 15 October 2025, with an Interim Care Order being granted on 22 October 2025 and extended eleven times thereafter.

Upon one such application for an Interim Care Order on 27 January 2026, the Agency’s application was refused by a judge of the District Court who expressed the view that W was not a child and therefore the court could no longer extend the orders. 

Following a judicial review of that decision, the Interim Care Order application was brought back before the District Court and extended on several occasions.

The Agency conducted an updated “Eligibility for Services” assessment in March 2026, which concluded the Agency did not believe that W was a child under 18 years of age, a decision upheld on appeal.

In March 2026, the Agency requested the District Court to undertake an inquiry pursuant to s.32 of the Act. The court spent some time hearing the matter over dates in May, prior to the Agency withdrawing their request in June.

The Agency then brought a further application to extend the Interim Care Order in respect of W.

The District Court

Judge Fottrell set out s.32 of the Act, which provides inter alia that the court shall make due inquiry as to the age of a person to whom the application relates and that the age presumed or declared by the court shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to be the true age of that person for the purposes of the Act.

Noting that there was no formal application before the court under s.32 of the Act, Judge Fottrell remarked that s.32 is not regularly used and that there is limited judicial authority on inquiries pursuant to the section, with most decisions taking place in District Court care proceedings which are usually not published.

Acknowledging that 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”, the District Court highlighted that the case had taken up a very significant amount of court time, resources and costs, having been before the court on 35 occasions since October 2025.

Judge Fottrell outlined that the Act is silent as to how an age inquiry should be undertaken and opined that having spent considerable time dealing with the case over the prior 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.”

The judge explained that in the case before him, the court had been asked to undertake an inquiry into W’s age without the updated age assessment which the Agency had recently completed having been put before the court in evidence.

Emphasising that this course of action 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”, the District Court considered that it is likely that further requests will be made in future where a young person’s age is uncertain.

In those circumstances, the court cautioned, “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. 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.”

Conclusion

In the circumstances, the District Court granted an extension of the Interim Care Order for one day.

In the matter of W (a child) [2026] IEDC 6