Dublin District Court granted an application for an Emergency Care Order for a primary school aged old boy following his school principal contacting the Gardai as she was concerned about his mother’s behaviour.
A solicitor for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) called three witnesses in support of the application: a member of An Garda Síochána, a senior social worker, and a family support worker.
The Garda described how the school principal had expressed “severe concern” at the respondent mother’s aggressive behaviour when she attempted to collect the boy from school. The Garda was satisfied that the threshold of section 12 of the Child Care Act, an immediate and serious risk to the child’s health and welfare, was met. The child was brought to safety and delivered into the custody of the CFA.
The senior social worker said there had been a meeting at the social work department the previous day, which the mother had attended. Members of her family, who were opposed to the boy being in her care, also attended. The social worker described how the meeting “got very out of control”. She said that the mother said she did not believe the social workers were real. The mother made threats, including that she would leave the jurisdiction with the boy, and/or slit her and his throats if attempts were made to remove him from her care.
The social worker confirmed that a grant called “Roomkeepers” from the Sick and Indigent Roomkeepers Society (SIRKS), Dublin’s oldest charity, had been approved on the morning of the court application. This would fund the purchasing and installation of appliances in the mother’s home.
The social worker summarised her concerns as substance use, the mother’s mental health and the condition of the home. She had told the mother that the boy needed a safe and sober adult and to be in a warm, clean home. At the end of her evidence, she formally confirmed that she believed there was “immediate and serious risk” to the boy if returned to his mother’s care, and that his physical and emotional needs would not be met. The social worker confirmed she was satisfied that an emergency care order was “the only necessary and proportionate order to be made.”
The family support worker gave evidence that she had over 20 years’ experience working in social care. She spoke of how the mother was known to her for a long time and she was aware of the mother’s own difficult upbringing. The boy and his mother are part of what the family support worker described as a “cohort that does not engage”, known as “hard to reach families”. The family support worker’s service, called a family base service, along with Dublin City Council, were working on a joint project to reach such families.
In this case, Dublin City Council had cleared a “huge build-up of domestic waste” from the family home. The boiler and back window were broken, but the Council had been unable to gain entry in order to make repairs. The support worker described the state of the home as having no fridge, no washing machine, a broken cooker, no hot water or heat. There was evidence of drug use in the home, including tablets and crack cocaine. She said that the boy’s bedroom was “ok”, compared to the rest of the home, but that, in her opinion, he “needs to be able to have a shower and be warm”.
A private family arrangement was in place, whereby the boy spent a lot of time at his maternal grand-aunt’s home. A sample routine was that he would go to her house, change into his school uniform (which she maintained for him), go to school, have hot meals, and attend extra-curricular activities from there. His grand aunt had enrolled him in drama club and boxing club, and brought him to medical appointments.
The root cause of this application for an emergency care order was that the mother withdrew her consent for the boy to go to his grand aunt’s. While in place, the CFA was relatively content to allow the family to manage the situation by way of this private family arrangement. When that arrangement broke down, the CFA stepped in and brought this court application.
After the commotion at the school on the day before this court application, the boy had said that he wanted to go to his grand aunt’s house. He was placed overnight in the care of a special needs assistant (SNA) who worked at his school and was also a foster carer. The CFA needed to carry out an assessment to confirm that the grand aunt was a suitable carer. The grand-aunt fully complied and agreed to undergo an emergency foster carer assessment. The CFA was then satisfied that it would be in the boy’s best interest to stay with his grand-aunt, if the court granted the emergency care order.
The mother was called to give evidence by her solicitor. She confirmed that she understood the application being made. She denied threatening to slit her or the boy’s throat. She accepted that she had said she would leave the jurisdiction with him, but explained: “I do say things that I don’t mean”. She accepted that her home did not have appliances, but was hopeful that the Roomkeepers funding would resolve that. She spoke of how a welfare check had been made on Monday of the same week, and those Gardaí did not invoke section 12 (seeking an emergency care order). She could not understand how it became necessary to invoke section 12 only a few days later, on Thursday of the same week.
She did not accept the suggestion that she had mental health issues, and said she had no formal mental health diagnosis. Referring to her family, she described feeling “like everyone was against me, out to hurt me”. She said: “I’m less addicted to drugs now”, but accepted that she had never offered to give or given samples for urinalysis. The solicitor for the CFA asked: “When did you last take drugs?”. The mother answered: “Yesterday, I took cocaine and smoked weed after they took him away”. The solicitor asked: “Do you understand the impact that your drug use has on him?”. The mother said: “I do understand”, adding “it doesn’t affect him”.
She clarified she meant that she wouldn’t be “roaring and shouting or hitting him”. The solicitor put to the mother that she had described the boy as her “crutch”. The mother confirmed that she was better able to manage her addiction when he was with her. She offered to attend day drug treatment. “I’ll get up early, bring him to school, go to STAR [a drug rehabilitation programme], go home and put on a dinner.”
She said she would work with Family Base and allow Dublin City Council access to install a new boiler and appliances. The solicitor for the CFA said: “You are putting your needs before his. He should not be your crutch”.
The judge thanked the mother for her evidence. He said there was “no doubt” she loved her son and wanted custody of him. “Whether she should though [have custody], depends on her ability to provide care.”
He summarised evidence heard from the Garda and family support worker, and how the senior social worker had described her presentation as “agitated, threatening, unstable, and unable to provide care”. The Judge noted that the boy expressed his wish to go to his grand-aunt’s, “and I must give weight to his views”. The judge said: “No doubt he will want to live with Mum eventually.” He said that the mother’s evidence “did not align with the Garda’s.”
The judge said it was a difficult decision and it was “with some sadness” that he granted an emergency care order. He said that the mother had reason to be hopeful as there was “every prospect she will be reunited with her son”, and this can be “sooner” if she addressed the professionals’ concerns around addiction and mental health.
“You are not on your own”, the judge said. “There are a lot of people there to help, and [the boy] is not going to the moon or Donegal or Cork. You have the comfort of knowing that he is being cared for by his grand-aunt.” The judge commended the family support worker for her work in the community. “It is not always appreciated, but it is appreciated by this court.”
The social worker confirmed that she would discuss access arrangements with the mother immediately after court.