A man is suing a convicted paedophile and other members of the abuser's family claiming he was the victim of assault and battery and emotional suffering while in foster care with the family.
Michael Dilger is suing Keith Burke, from Addergoolemore, Dunmore, Co Galway, who was jailed for seven and a half years in 2018 for the rape of three girls who were in the same foster home between 2003 and 2011.
He was a son of the foster carers and was aged between 14 and 18 at the time while the girls were all under the age of 10.
Mr Dilger is now suing Keith Burke along with his parents, Kathleen and Gerry Burke, who were the foster carers, and another family member Daniel Burke. He is also suing the HSE and the Child and Family Agency (CFA).
He claims, as against the Burkes, that certain members of the foster family perpetrated acts of assault and battery and inflicted emotional suffering upon him.
As against the HSE and the CFA, he claims they failed to ensure that the Burke parents were fit and suitable people to carry out the duties of foster parents.
It is also claimed those bodies failed to provide for any or any adequate assessment or inspection, periodic or otherwise, of persons approved by them to carry out the duties of foster parents to ascertain any abusive potential of such persons or their families. The claims are denied.
The matter came before Mr Justice Garrett Simons by way of a pre-trial application for discovery of certain documents from the HSE and the CFA.
The same application had previously come before the Deputy Master of the High Court who directed discovery of certain documents.
These included documents or notes in relation to any investigations, inspections, risk assessments, safety plans checks, and/or enquiries made or steps taken as to the suitability of the Burke parents for fostering.
Also ordered to be disclosed were all documents or notes evidencing the response of the HSE and CFA insofar as it related to the Burke fostering arrangements and information about the "behaviour and proclivities" of Keith until Mr Dilger left the foster home.
The HSE and CFA asked Mr Justice Simons to discharge the Deputy Master's discovery order.
They claimed they had a concern as to the adverse implications which the making of that discovery would have for certain individuals who had been in care with this foster family in or around the same time as Mr Dilger.
They claimed the discovery orders were disproportionately wide given the extremely sensitive nature of the documents which would be involved. It would be more appropriate to confine discovery to the file relating to the foster parents themselves and the social work file of Mr Dilger, it was argued.
Mr Justice Simons agreed to discharge the Deputy Master's order and replace it with orders directing the discovery of all documents contained in the social work file held by the HSE and the CFA in relation to Mr Dilger personally.
He also ordered discovery of all documents contained in the social work file held in relation to the foster parents, the content of which may be redacted to exclude any extraneous reference to third parties.
Mr Dilger was entitled to apply for further and better discovery when he has received and reviewed this information, the judge said.
Earlier, he said the fact that a document may be confidential is something which goes to whether an order for discovery is necessary.
Where a discovery application for confidential documentation is made, the court should only order discovery in circumstances where it becomes clear that the interests of justice in bringing about a fair result of the proceedings require such an order, he said.
