The District Court extended an interim care order (ICO) for three children with significant needs despite very serious safety and welfare issues in their placement.
The children’s father consented to the extension. He was in prison for a drug-related offence, was not due to be released for another year, and attended court in the custody of the Irish Prison Service. His barrister said that the father was taking a pragmatic approach to the proceedings; he could not currently parent his children but would like to remain involved.
The judge questioned the father’s barrister concerning the father’s conviction. The barrister said that the offence was the father’s second offence for drugs, and he had been sentenced to four years in prison. There had been no violence or assault involved.
The children’s mother also consented to the extension of the ICO. However, her barrister said that the mother was extremely concerned about the children’s placement due to safety and well-being concerns. The mother named family members that she would like considered as an alternative placement for her children.
The solicitor for the CFA said that the children were placed with their grandmother and their uncle who had an intellectual disability. The children had made serious, ongoing allegations against their uncle, which were being investigated by gardai. The uncle claimed that he was only reacting to the children, however the children had made numerous allegations that they had been and continued to be assaulted within the home.
The judge said that it was unfortunate that the uncle’s disability might impact on his understanding of the ramifications of hitting the children, however there was no justification for assaulting a child with fists.
Gardai had recently attended at the home during a joint children’s birthday party. The mother only became aware of the children’s allegations at that time. The CFA said that they did not know why gardai attended at the home as they did not have all of the information. The CFA solicitor said that there was a safety plan in place in respect of the uncle that included no unsupervised contact between him and the children. The CFA was satisfied that no unsupervised contact would take place, however the GAL said that she had spoken with the grandmother about the assaults on the children and the grandmother had replied that it had nothing to do with her.
The social worker said that the fostering team had been contacted to see about the possibility of a placement for one child and a separate placement for the other two children.
The solicitor for the CFA said that the CFA had other concerns. A tenant of the grandmother lived in dwelling located at the back of the grandmother’s house. The grandmother’s house and the tenant shared a garden. The tenant had a conviction, with a suspended sentence, for assault, and it was not clear to the CFA whether the assault charge was in relation to a child or an adult. At a later hearing it emerged the tenant was another son of the grandmother.
The CFA solicitor said that they were considering prohibiting the tenant from residing there. The CFA had requested information from An Garda Siochana regarding the nature of the assault however the gardai had responded that they could not provide the information due to data protection concerns as the information collected was collected solely for law enforcement purposes.
When gardai had attended the foster placement on the day of the children’s birthday party the tenant had been in the back yard playing with the children. The social worker said that there had been no unsupervised contact as other people were there. The GAL said that despite the circumstances the children still had access to the back garden.
The judge directed the CFA to contact the local garda superintendent to provide information to the court in relation to the tenant’s conviction. The judge said that she was concerned that the court was making decisions of a very serious nature without adequate information.
The social worker team leader said that a garda vetting form was completed in relation to the tenant with the assault charge. The CFA followed up on the garda vetting form on three occasions but had received no response from the gardai other than that in relation to data protection.
The social worker team leader said that the tenant was prohibited from using the back garden or going near the children. The judge asked the CFA to contact the vetting bureau advising them why the CFA required the garda vetting information.
The children were attending a summer camp supported by the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAHMS).
The team leader added that the father could be difficult to contact, however he engaged with, and had a positive relationship with, the social work team. The children had informal, unstructured access with their father via telephone when their father rang the children’s grandmother and then the grandmother asked the children if they would like to speak to daddy.
The mother spoke up from the body of the court and said that the children did not know their father. She became emotional and left the courtroom. Her barrister said that she was upset at the prospect of access taking place between the children and their father.
The social work team leader said that the mother’s tenancy had been terminated so she was accessing homeless services. The mother was meant to engage with mental health supports, however she had not done so. A review of the mother’s mental health was important in order to make plans for access with the children together, or separately with each individual child.
A parenting capacity assessment was required, and the CFA had two assessors who agreed to conduct the assessment. Access between the children and their mother had been temporarily suspended when the children refused to see her. Recently the children had said that they would like to see their mother, so an access review had been scheduled. The social worker said that it is important to support access between the mother and her children.
The social worker said that extended services such as a service that helped young people heal from trauma should be provided. An assessment meeting had been scheduled in respect of the extended services and a meeting between the children’s current school and their new school was to be organised. The social worker also recommended that training on good touch, bad touch, be completed with the children.
The GAL said that one of the children had been gifted a video game for over 16s for his birthday. It was not an appropriate gift given the child’s age, and work on an ongoing basis must be done with the foster family to ensure that parental controls on electronic devices are always on.
Judge: “The children’s screen time is a concern. There is a parallel between screen time and swimming unsupervised as children can come across inappropriate material. Grandmother needs to understand that she is an agent of the CFA. There is a lot going on but there are legitimate expectations of her. The foster carer has to ensure that the children are adequately supervised.”
The judge said that extremely young children being exposed to long screen times, negatively impacted their development. The children’s screen time must be considered when assessing the children’s needs. She said that one location designated for electronic devices would have helped the safety plan.
The GAL said that she had met with the children, and they had talked about wanting to see their mom. She had also met with the grandmother who was under a lot of pressure. The grandmother told the GAL that she was unhappy with the placement plan. The grandmother said that the children’s allegations were lies, and she could not see how the placement can continue.
In respect of the screen time the GAL said that it was difficult to implement now but should have been implemented back when the children were brought into care.
GAL: “Had we said in November no screens in the room, we would be over it now, but screens are still in the rooms. It is a three-storey house with many rooms with screens.”
The judge replied that she was concerned that the issue of screen times had been addressed on the last court date, but since then the grandmother had purchased a television and a game for over 16-year-olds for a six-year-old. The CFA said that they were trying to educate the grandmother so that she could understand the bigger picture.
The judge said that it was “past the time for granny’s education.” Educating the grandmother as to parental controls was one thing but educating her on purchasing games that were not age appropriate was another. Even if the grandmother had not sanctioned the purchase of the game, she had allowed the game to be given to the child.
In the circumstances the court extended the ICO. The judge also said that she required more information on the father’s convictions.
The interim care order was further extended a month later. Updated reports from the social work and fostering teams were handed into court, along with an assessment requested by the court at an earlier hearing on risk factors in the foster placement.
The solicitor said the children were still in the care of their grandmother. The case continued to raise welfare concerns, particularly around the use of screens and devices, the presence of an uncle against whom allegations of physical abuse had previously been made, and also the presence of another uncle who had a previous conviction for assault.
The team leader, who had only recently taken over the case, said that while some progress had been made in reducing the children’s screen time, the issue remained ongoing and there were concerns that the children were being exposed to inappropriate adult content. “We’ve asked the foster carers to ensure there are no devices in the bedrooms,” he said. “The social worker is meeting them today to make sure that happens.”
He said a report had been carried out by the fostering team regarding the uncle who lived in a converted granny flat at the rear of the property. On speaking with him it was confirmed he had been convicted in 2008 of assault against a former partner. However, he worked full time, used a side entrance to the flat and had no access to the main house. The witness said a safety plan was in place requiring that the children be supervised in the garden whenever the uncle was present.
He also referred to the other uncle who had an intellectual disability and still lived in the main house. In circumstances where he had physically assaulted the children in the past, the original safety plan had set out that all access between them would be supervised, but following consultation with an intellectual disability service, the fostering team subsequently considered whether to step down the safety plan to allow unsupervised contact.
The view of the intellectual disability service was that continued supervised contact would do more harm than good and recommended a gradual increase in contact to strengthen the relationship. However, following a more recent concern that he had been allowed to bring one of the children to football, a decision was made to keep the original safety plan in place.
The children were otherwise doing very well in the placement and there were no other concerns. Efforts were continuing to complete their assessments of need with an assessment by a private psychological service, Treehouse, within three to four months. Both announced and unannounced visits would continue to ensure compliance with the safety plan.
In cross-examination, the guardian ad litem (GAL) solicitor asked whether devices had been removed from the children’s bedrooms. The team leader said the meeting with the grandmother was happening that day. He also confirmed that funding for the Treehouse psychological assessment had not yet been approved.
Asked about the uncle in the granny flat, he said he was not aware of any barring or protection order in his past, but confirmed that the children should be supervised if he was in the garden. The GAL solicitor suggested that asking him to leave the property would “surely eliminate a lot of the issues.” The witness said he had not been asked to do so.
It was put to the witness that the grandmother had told the GAL she would ask her son to leave if requested and that the children’s needs came first. The witness said he was not aware of that.
The GAL gave evidence supporting the application, but disagreed with the CFA’s position on relaxing supervision for the uncle with an intellectual disability. “The fact is, the children were hurt by him,” she said. “The safety plan must remain in place for supervised access.”
On the issue of the other uncle, she said the arrangement was “not ideal” and “against policy and procedure.” “It’s the grandmother’s property, and she said she would ask him to leave if asked, but she hasn’t been asked,” the GAL said. The judge asked what she thought of supervising access in the garden, to which she said it was “just another pressure on the granny.” The judge noted it was also hard on the children as they could not freely play in the garden.
The judge extended the interim care orders for all three children for 28 days and put the matter in for mention on an earlier date to confirm Treehouse funding and to allow the fostering team to update the court on long-term matching assessments.