A High Court judge in Northern Ireland has ruled that a Health and Social Care Trust breached a mother's right to family life by repeatedly failing to hold Looked After Children reviews within legally required timeframes, though the court declined to award damages on top of the declaration of breach.

The case was brought by the mother of two children, now aged 13 and 7, who were placed in kinship care under care orders made on 10 June 2022 following public law proceedings initiated by the Trust. The mother argued that delays in progressing a rehabilitation plan violated her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr Justice Humphreys identified four separate failures to convene LAC reviews within the six-month intervals required by the Review of Children's Cases Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996. These included a gap of approximately 11 months between April 2022 and March 2023, a further delay of around eight months to November 2023, a review in June 2024 that was approximately two weeks late, and a review in June 2025 that fell some six months outside the statutory timeframe. The Trust acknowledged the delays were caused by staff sick leave and service pressures.

The Trust had argued the case was academic given the progress made toward returning the children to the mother's care, pointing to a change in care plan agreed in June 2025 toward a dual track of rehabilitation or kinship care. A parental assessment referred to Thorndale began on 14 August 2025 and produced positive results. By the LAC review of 17 November 2025, it was agreed the elder child would return to the mother's care, with the younger child's return planned once further work was completed.

Humphreys J rejected the argument that the case had become academic, noting the mother's engagement with the Trust was ongoing and that the rehabilitation process for the younger child was not yet complete at the time of the hearing. The judge held that the Salem principles, which caution courts against determining academic disputes, had no application in a case involving the ongoing vindication of individual Convention rights.

On the question of damages, the court found that the breaches were procedural in nature and that there was no basis on which to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that timely LAC reviews would have resulted in earlier rehabilitation. The court applied section 8(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and determined that a declaration of breach was sufficient to afford just satisfaction without an additional award of damages.

The judge indicated the parties would be heard on the precise wording of the declaration and on costs.