The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland has dismissed an appeal against an emergency protection order (EPO) made for a 13-year-old boy, holding that the remote out-of-hours hearing was lawful and that the order was properly granted.

The case arose after the Western Health and Social Care Trust applied on 2 February 2026 under Article 60 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. The boy, referred to as D, was in hospital and medically fit for discharge, but the Trust and CAMHS considered he could not safely return home. District Judge McSorley made the EPO at Dungannon Magistrates Court after a remote hearing attended by a senior social worker and D's mother, the appellant. No solicitors were present. An interim care order was made on the return date and has been renewed.

The appeal by way of case stated asked four questions, all answered in the affirmative. The Court of Appeal said remote attendance was a matter of judicial discretion, not law, and the judge was entitled to proceed remotely given the out-of-hours risk to D and the fact the mother was housebound. It also held the judge could sit without lay magistrates after attempts to find them were unsuccessful, and that describing the hearing as inter partes was not an error. The court said the mother retained standing to seek discharge because she had not been given notice in accordance with the rules of court.

On the EPO itself, the court found the judge applied the correct legal test, considered relevant factors and reached a conclusion in D's best interests. There was no basis to interfere with the factual finding. The court added: "In reality, this appeal was always bound to fail." It also found that "the hearing was conducted fairly and that the outcome was inevitable".

The judgment identified a procedural flaw. The mother was not served with the application under the 1996 Rules, and the judge made no direction dispensing with service. The court said: "It is regrettable that neither the appellant nor her instructing solicitor were properly served." It allowed for the emergency but said the issue should have been raised and addressed by a formal order. No injustice occurred because the mother knew of the application and took part. The court also said the argument that the Official Solicitor should have been involved was weak, and suggested the Directorate of Legal Services consider a checklist for social workers in out-of-hours EPO applications.