A Dublin District Court judge granted an application by the Child and Family Agency (CFA) to extend an interim care order (ICO) for a girl of secondary school going age. The initial ICO had been granted the previous month by the same judge. Access between the parents and the child had been suspended. In parallel, the parents were appealing this order to the Circuit Court. While that appeal progressed in parallel, the matter remained before the District Court.
The judge reminded all of the in camera rule, which requires that such matters be heard in private, saying “switch off all phones,” alluding to a previous allegation that one of the parties had breached the in camera rule by illicitly recording the proceedings.
Both parents were contesting the application to extend their daughter’s ICO. The judge said that they were only entitled to contest it based on evidence of events since the last court date. It could not be a re-hearing of the initial ICO application.
The court heard that a forensic assessment was underway of the child’s mother’s “capacity to protect”. Counsel for the mother confirmed that she agreed with the father’s submissions. The child’s father was represented by a barrister, who attempted to move an application for the father for access and “related matters”.
Counsel for the CFA asked that the father’s application be adjourned, on the basis that it was not properly constituted. The CFA barrister objected that the father was seeking 23 reliefs, many of which were beyond the scope of an access application.
Access between the girl and both of her parents had been suspended by the CFA. The court heard how the girl’s mother’s access had been reinstated, but that the access agreement was breached a week later when the father attended the mother’s access visit. Counsel for the mother asked the social worker if the mother could be provided with an expectations document so that the mother could understand what she needed to do over the next month. The social worker agreed to this.
The solicitor for the GAL explained how the GAL was frustrated in executing his duties. He felt that the child was unduly influenced by her parents, which made it nearly impossible for him to carry out his duty – to gather the child’s wishes and to offer his own professional opinion. The child’s mother believed that a female GAL ought to be appointed to her daughter. Counsel for the CFA expressed the CFA’s confidence in the GAL and expressed the agency’s “alarm” at the level of impeding by the parents.
Counsel for the girl’s father expressed some of his concerns to the social worker, while she gave her evidence. The father claimed that his daughter had a rare type of Covid. The social worker said there was no evidence for that. The social worker said that, while the girl was undergoing a medical scan, her father attempted to call her during the assessment and he claim that his daughter needed a specialised type of bra. The girl’s mother expressed concern that the girl was not receiving the same level of care or nourishment that she would receive at home.
Counsel for the girl’s father expressed the father’s concern at lack of contact with her school. He wanted access to her school app, but the school and social workers did not allow this. The social workers agreed to facilitate a parent-teacher meeting at the social work department office as the school had expressed a preference for such a meeting to not take place at the girl’s school.
The girl’s father caused multiple interruptions of the hearing and at one point left the court but returned.
The judge noted that the parents opposed the extension of the girl’s ICO. However, having considered the evidence and the support of the GAL for the extension, he found that the threshold continued to exist to warrant leaving the ICO in place.
He said that a significant change in circumstances must be shown in order for the threshold for granting an ICO to not be met. The judge expressed concern at “what appears to be continuing and worsening coercive control” of the girl, the making of disparaging comments about the social workers (generally and to the school), and “what appears to be the constructive dismissal of the GAL.” The judge saw no reason to discharge the GAL and left the existing one in place.