An interim care order was extended in a provincial city for a pre-school child. The court had heard extensive evidence at the hearing of the interim care order application on the previous occasion the matter was in court. The mother was not present in court but she was represented by a solicitor and her advocate was present. The father was neither present nor represented.
Social worker evidence
The social worker gave evidence that in her opinion the health, care and development of the infant required an extension of the interim care order, and that it was in the best interests of the child.
The social worker said that the child was doing well since the interim care order was made. The child had been referred to a consultant neo-natal paediatrician as he hadn’t met his developmental milestones and he had been linked with a paediatric occupational therapist. The paediatric occupational therapist wished to see him in a home setting and in his school setting once he was settled in school. The social worker said the boy had been offered a place in a school where he would start for one hour increasing to five hours a day, and he would be supported with therapeutic services.
The social worker said the child had undergone an ear, nose and throat assessment and there were no concerns relating to his hearing. He would be having a brain MRI to rule out any concerns due to developmental delays. He had also been linked with the community nursing team and he would be reviewed by a psychologist when he was settled in school.
The solicitor for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) said that the mother had not given her consent for him to be in full-time school and they were therefore applying to the court to dismiss with the mother’s consent required to send him to school. The social worker said that the child had been allocated a place in a mainstream pre-school and there was also a place available for him in a special school if he required it.
The social worker said that the child was secure in his placement. He had not had any contact with his mother since July 2024 and she had struggled to engage with the social work team since March 2025. She had not attended recent child in care reviews but up to March 2025 she had been happy to engage in open dialogue with the social work team.
Solicitor for the mother: “Will access with the mother be supported when she is well enough?”
Social worker: “Absolutely. The mother can always meet with the social work team on a one and one basis if it’s less confronting for her than a child in care meeting.”
The judge said that access with the mother should be progressed once the mother was well enough.
The solicitor for the CFA said that she had a section 47 application before the court seeking to dispense with the consent of the mother in relation to numerous health and welfare decisions relating to the child including medical, dental, immunisations, hospital admissions, registration with the public health nurse and attendance at school. The solicitor for the CFA acknowledged that this was a long list of decisions but this was a very complex case and all the decisions were relevant to this case.
The mother’s solicitor said that it was for the court to decide whether the consent of the mother should be dispensed with in relation to all of the requested decisions, and she acknowledged that the mother was not very well at the moment.
Advocate appointed
The judge welcomed the mother’s recently-appointed advocate to the courtroom. The mother’s solicitor requested that the in camera rule be lifted to allow the social work reports to be given to the mother’s advocate.
The judge spoke directly to the mother’s advocate.
Judge: “You are the mother’s advocate. We are discussing the child’s needs and wants. There have been several referrals made with regard to the child and we would appreciate if you could update mother.”
The judge explained the in camera rule to the mother’s advocate. She said the reports were to be used as guidance for the advocate to assist the mother but they were not to be released to her.
The judge said there was an application to dispense with mother’s consent in relation to various medical issues. The judge said it was a very broad list and she was not inclined to grant an omnibus section 47 from a medical perspective. The judge asked the social worker to identify and isolate which matters were most urgent and essential where it was required the mother’s consent was dispensed with. The social worker said that the consent to attending school was the most urgent decision, and the other decisions could wait until the hearing of the full care order.
The judge appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) for the child.
The judge commended the social work team for proactively moving everything along for the child, and she hoped that this pace would be kept going. She said that the threshold for an extension of the interim care order had been reached and she extended it until the hearing of the full care order in four weeks’ time.