Smith, who delivered the court’s ruling, said procedural irregularities by public bodies could be challenged and noted that the nurse was not told of some of the defects in her adoption application until she came to court.

He made it clear that the court was not making a finding of fact, but said it appeared the nurse’s application was not given proper consideration, adding that the court was satisfied that, on the face of it, a case had been made out for review.

“At the end of the day, the court is the final arbiter of the welfare of the child,” he said, adding that whatever allegations were made can be dealt with at the full hearing of the claim.

At the procedural appeal hearing, the Children’s Authority agreed not to proceed with the child’s adoption.

According to the nurse’s claim, she cared for the child from birth. He was born on September 9, 2015.

He spent one month and ten days in the neo-natal intensive care unit and was released into his mother’s care on October 9, 2015. The child’s mother returned him to the hospital the next day and he stayed in the paediatric intensive unit for another month. He was then transferred to a ward where the nurse continued to care for him, providing emotional stability, physical contact and financial needs.

The claim says the child’s mother never returned for him and he remained at the hospital for one and a half years before he was removed by the authority.

On August 29, 2016, the nurse expressed an interest in adopting him and being a foster parent since they had established a bond.

She was encouraged to foster him until the assessment was made for adoption. The nurse submitted her application on November 24, 2016, for the child’s adoption and was told that the assessment would be done in December.

The nurse claimed she was never told of any supporting documentation, including a police certificate of good character for herself and those in her household, were needed for the application.

On February 9, 2017, the child was moved from the ward and taken into a foster home. When she tried to get an update from the authority on her adoption application, she said she was told she “would never be able to adopt” the child and was told do not return to the authority’s offices.

After writing to the Health Minister and the director of the authority, she was told of a date for the assessment, which gave her hope. It never took place and after her attorneys sent a pre-action letter to the authority, she was told she did not submit a proper application.

The nurse filed a judicial review application and it was only then was she told she did not submit a police character certificate.

In submissions made by the authority, the court was told that the child was now almost five years’ old and was in the custody of his prospective adopters, a married couple, with whom he was matched and was thriving in their care.

In her decision, Wilson said there was no dispute that the nurse failed to submit a police certificate of character in support of her application.

“Therefore, notwithstanding the defendant’s alleged failure to engage with the applicant on her application, it cannot be said that the application met the requirements of the regulations and that the applicant was unfairly excluded from consideration by the defendant.

She added, “The defendant’s failure to advise the applicant of a legal requirement, duly published in the regulations, cannot be elevated to the threshold of unreasonableness or unfairness.”

The authority was represented by attorneys Ravi Heffes-Doon and Kinda Jacob.