The Dublin District Court extended an interim care order (ICO) for only 14 days for a teenager (Girl A) who, despite already being the subject of an ICO and housed by Tusla in a special emergency arrangement (SEA), had repeatedly gone missing from care and had recently been allegedly raped by several middle-aged men.
The mother’s solicitor said that the teenager had gone missing in care approximately ten times since the previous court date in June and the mother was left to walk the streets looking for her. He read from a social work report which quoted the teenager as saying, “I’m intoxicated and potentially under the influence.”
It was believed that the teenager consorted with another girl she knew (Girl B), and both were subjected to performing sexual favours for middle aged men in various locations around the city. The girl would be collected, brought to a park, sexually assaulted, and then returned to her placement.
A couple of days before the court hearing the teenager had been subjected to an invasive sexual assault investigation and was scheduled for a specialist garda interview the day after court. Gardai said that they would arrange to bring the girl around the city to identify the locations where she was sexually assaulted. In addition, an assessment, consultation, and therapy service (ACTS) therapeutic meeting was scheduled for the day after court.
The judge said that this matter had spiralled out of control and that the Child and Family Agency (CFA) had to account for the girl’s safety, explain why the girl was able to escape and what standard of care was being provided to her as a vulnerable citizen. The judge requested that the CFA have someone to attend court to answer the court’s questions.
Judge: “I am going to rise and read the whole report. Bring someone here to answer. The court has severe concerns. This court cannot stand over an extension of an order when this child has been exposed to this level of danger.”
When the hearing resumed the solicitor for the CFA said that the social work team leader and the principal social worker would explain the actions of the staff at the residential placement.
The barrister for the guardian ad litem (GAL) said that the GAL was very concerned about how matters have progressed, however she supported an extension of the ICO but only for a period of 14 days and not the usual 28-day period. There were two important meetings scheduled; a professional meeting to identify the girl’s needs and develop a therapeutic plan and a child welfare meeting with family to identify a support network. The 14-day ICO would give the respective teams an opportunity to attend these meetings and report back to the court at the end of the 14 days as to what the CFA would do to ensure the girl’s welfare.
The GAL said that her current report did not contain the child’s wishes as she had not been able to meet the girl before the court date as the girl was missing in care. The GAL did speak with the girl at one point and the girl said she wished to return home to her mother’s care, but she could not elaborate on how that could happen. The GAL said that the girl presents as younger than her age; she was previously involved in theft and does not understand the effects of her behaviour.
Over several weeks the girl had continued to go missing in care, appeared to be under the influence and was subjected to sexual exploitation. The sexual exploitation happened when the girl was with another young girl who made the arrangements. Gardai had become involved when the girl had gone missing in care and they were investigating the sexual assault.
The GAL said that when the girl was with Girl B she was automatically classified as missing in care. The GAL also said that there should be regular contact with the Gardai and there should be a meeting with Gardai to discuss the level of concerns for the girl. There had been no media alerts for the girl since the end of May despite the social work team recommending that a media alert be made.
There was a shortage of placements. The girl’s current placement was an emergency short term arrangement. The social work team continued to contact the national placement team, but no placement had been identified for the girl. The GAL said that the girl’s profile made it very difficult to find a placement for her.
The GAL recommended that a proportionate ICO be granted to allow time for the professional and welfare meetings to take place. The GAL did not recommend that the girl return home without a proper plan or supports as that could contribute to a crisis within a week. The GAL also recommended that a therapeutic plan be provided within two weeks, a roadmap for reunification be provided to include the mother’s mental health, support network and identification of the child’s overall needs. It might be necessary to consider secure care as the current placement was not meeting the girl’s needs. Secure care was different from other residential placements.
GAL: “We need to acknowledge that the child’s experience in care is not meeting her needs. There needs to be a parallel plan for her. Identify what could be put in place to allow her to return home.”
Judge: “This is the second time here. On the last occasion you said that you did not agree with the placement. The child’s behaviour is escalating. Mainstream care does not suit, and there is no guarantee that a special care service would be provided to the girl.”
The GAL repeated that she supported a 14-day ICO. She was worried for the girl’s safety and said that providing a safety net was a key part of the conversation to be had at the meetings. The GAL acknowledged that when the girl was found after she had gone missing and after she made disclosures of rape the out-of-hours social work team and the Gardai made the decision that the girl remain with her mother.
She said that a young person deserves a care placement where she could engage and be cared for by a team, however, the girl had not engaged with the special emergency arrangement team. The girl required predictable and stable care to support her mental health, dysregulation, and her relationship with her mother. A plan was required that would keep the girl engaged on a day-to-day basis.
The solicitor for the CFA said that a special care referral was required to help alleviate the escalation in the girl’s behaviour. In addition, the mother’s support services must be identified, but he said he was not aware of anyone from the mother’s mental health service that would be in attendance at the family welfare meeting. Assessments such as a parental capacity assessment would identify strengths and weaknesses so that the CFA could provide supports based on the outcome of the assessment.
The mother’s solicitor asked the GAL if she acknowledged that if the girl remained in care her health and welfare would be negatively impacted. The girl’s behaviour had escalated, she was reported as missing in care on numerous occasions, and sexually abused whilst in care.
Mother’s solicitor: “The situation has deteriorated. The child came into care on foot of her mother being detained under the Mental Health Act. A family member left the child at hospital and that care relationship broke down. The prompt for the application was not the deterioration in the child that we saw in the past three weeks.”
The mother’s solicitor said that the girl had challenging behaviour. Although there had been previous incidents before she was brought into care, they were not at the same level currently experienced. In the past month the girl had gone missing in care 10 times, some of those times extended past 24 hours. There had been an opportunity to rehabilitate the child while in care and begin to plan her return home, but that opportunity had not been taken by the CFA. He said “The GAL claims returning the child to the care of her mother could cause a crisis situation. However, we are in crisis now.”
To take a child into care the CFA had to be able to deliver the care required for the child, however that care had not been delivered, and there was no prospect of an alternative placement for the girl. After several months in care, it was clear that the special emergency arrangement was not appropriate for Child A and if she remained in care the situation might spiral out of control even more. Awful events, such as sexual exploitation, had been disclosed since the girl was brought into care. The mother had to bring her to the sexual assault unit. Afterwards the Gardai and the out-of-hours social work team had decided it was best for the girl to stay with her mother.
The mother’s solicitor said that the CFA had failed in its guardianship of the girl and failed to establish that an ICO was necessary for the protection her welfare. Evidence pointed to continued risk that progressed in an extraordinary matter.
A special care application was flagged as a possibility, but the CFA report did not mention special care and the special care application had not progressed. In addition, there were no special care beds currently available within the state. He said that issues with the girl had been flagged several months ago.
The process for a referral to special care included information to be assembled for the referral, and referral meetings which occurred on a two-week cycle. If the criterion for special care was met an application was then made to the High Court. If the High Court application was successful, the child was then queued for a bed to become available, with the entire process taking several months.
The mother’s solicitor said that a special emergency arrangement could not restrict the movements of children in care yet there had been instances where the District Court have directed that some children in an SEA be restricted.
The social worker was asked how a child could go missing from care and be exposed to harm while in the CFA’s care. She said that an SEA was an open-door facility that was prohibited from using any restrictive practices such as locking doors or physical restraints to prevent a child from leaving. An SEA was not a regulated residential unit and the staff did not have the required training. SEA staff did have training in de-escalation; however, de-escalation could only be used when a child was at risk.
The only secure placements provided by the CFA were special care placements which were only considered when a child was at risk to themselves or at risk of harming others. Special care could prevent a child from leaving the placement and would also provide therapeutic supports. A meeting was scheduled with ACTS, and they had requested updated reports on the girl, including her criminal convictions and any pending criminal charges. The purpose of the meeting with ACTS was to gather professional views on what the child required. Also, a psychological assessment of the girl was required.
The social worker said that she thought it was too early to consider special care for the girl as she had only just been taken into care, however given the escalation of the girl’s behaviour a special care referral should be progressed, particularly as it was hard to implement therapeutic supports for a child when they were in a crisis situation.
The social work team had met with An Garda Siochana to discuss the child’s sexual exploitation and going missing in care. The social worker said that some of the times the girl had gone missing she either returned or was at her mother’s house, so the team knew where she was and therefore no media alert was issued.
The mother’s solicitor said that the mother would concede a supervision order which would allow the GAL to remain involved. The judge then asked the GAL’s barrister what the child would lose if the court refused to extent the ICO. The barrister said that an ICO would provide the girl with the benefit of CFA oversight and intervention, and if the court refused the ICO the child would not have this benefit. The benefit of court oversight was that the court could make directions every 28 days, whereas an SO was often granted for several months.
The social work team leader said that a placement plan had been circulated to the parties and a therapeutic plan was formulated for the professional meeting scheduled for the following day. The special care application would be progressed. The girl was very confused and was in breach of her bail.
When the girl was with her mother her mother could not control her and there had been incidents where she had attacked her mother. She said that all adults needed to fully buy into the plan to help the child, however the mother undermined the CFA’s efforts by not forcing the child to return to the SEA. There had been several occasions where the child left the SEA placement, went to her mother’s house and then went missing. Mother and child wanted to be together, but that must happen in a planned way. The CFA was seeking an extension of the ICO and she said that they were committed to a plan of action within two weeks of the court date.
The girl’s mother said that she rang Gardai each time the girl returned home. The mother said: “She did not go missing from my home but did when the SEA collected her.” On that occasion the SEA team collected the girl from her mother’s house and the girl went missing from their care when they stopped at a shop. It was then that the girl was sexually abused by five different men.
The mother rang the Gardai when the girl returned to the mother’s house. After the disclosure of the sexual assault, the Gardai and the off duty social worker recommended that the girl remain at her mother’s house. The CFA were not involved in the sexual investigation unit when the girl was physically examined as there was no time.
Mother: “All the times she was in my care, and I pounded the pavement looking for her and found her drunk in town she was never raped. The SEA has allowed her to use the phone and have arranged taxis for her to go and meet this child (Girl B). I go out in the middle of the night and walk around for hours looking for her. I ring the Gardai, I ring all the districts. The CFA have not assisted when she went missing. The CFA switch their phones off at 5pm and it is up to me to find her. Every time she went missing, I went out to find her every single time.”
The mother became very emotional. “I am very angry right now. She can be in my care from 6 am to 10pm at night but she can’t sleep in my care. I don’t understand that. I cannot comprehend in my head what my child has been going though. A network of paedophiles, men swapping her around. The biggest concern is all of these supports can be put in place while she is home,” the mother said.
The barrister for the GAL said that it is very clear to everyone that the mother loves and is committed to her daughter.
The mother said that the SEA staff would bring the girl in a taxi to meet Girl B who made the arrangements for both girls to meet middle-aged men. Girl B was known to the girl as she was an ex-girlfriend of the girl’s older brother.
She said her daughter had been convicted of theft at a shopping centre and was banned from that centre. The SEA had brought the girl to that shopping centre despite it being a no-go area for her. The girl was not to use a phone in private, however the SEA staff allowed the girl private access to a phone.
The solicitor for the CFA acknowledged that there was work to be done and promised that he would do everything in his power both professionally and personally to expediate the special care application.
The GAL’s barrister outlined the benefit of the court extending the ICO to include more forensic court and GAL oversight.
The judge described the evidence given as alarming. She said that allowing the child to return home would not be the correct thing to do therefore a supervision order would not be appropriate. She said that she would “very reluctantly” extend the ICO for 14 days. The judge required that the CFA provide a timeline on the referral to the special care committee.