A judge in a rural court was scathing in her criticism of both the Gardaí and the Child and Family Agency (CFA), who had failed to progress an investigation into an assault allegation made by a child of junior primary school age some two and a half years previously. The case was now being progressed by a sergeant, who had been appointed to the case four months earlier. Child A, who had made the allegation and had suffered injuries, and his sibling of preschool age (Child B) were in the same foster placement. The judge reluctantly extended the care orders to allow the investigation to be completed so that a delayed psychological assessment could take place.
The CFA lawyer asked the Garda sergeant what his role in the case involved. The Sergeant informed the judge that he had been assigned to the case two months previously and that a number of matters required further investigation. He stated that he estimated that it would take a further six months for the file to be returned from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
The judge expressed her alarm at the delay in this matter, stating that the allegation had been made by the child two and a half years previously. She inquired what had caused such a long delay and the sergeant told her that two Gardaí had retired in the intervening period. There had been some progress achieved and one arrest was made, but the matter had not been sent to the DPP at that time. The judge inquired when the arrest had been made and was told that this had happened six months earlier.
The judge asked what had happened during the period of delay and the Sergeant replied that very little had happened in that time. The Sergeant said that he had only been assigned four months earlier and that he hoped to have the file completed after further investigations and sent to the DPP within the next two months. He said that there were lines of inquiry still in motion.
Judge: “I have found the Garda investigation, up to your appointment, to be wholly inadequate.”
The judge expressed her serious dissatisfaction with the long delay, during which nothing happened. She stressed that this matter related to the most vulnerable of children. She directed the Sergeant to convey her dissatisfaction to his Superintendent in the most serious manner. She also directed that the DPP office be informed of the timeline of this matter and to be advised to expedite it. The judge directed the CFA lawyer to write to the DPP office to seek the timeline from the date of the allegation to the present date, including the date of the arrest and the period of time during which nothing had happened.
The children’s social worker told the court that she had been allocated to the two siblings, who were both in the same placement. A screening assessment had been carried out on B to check if he was on the autism spectrum but he did not meet the criteria for autism. Speech and language therapy would be needed for B once he commenced primary school. She described him as being in good health, eating a healthy diet and beginning to talk.
The social worker informed the court that it took A some time to settle in his placement. She described him as healthy and said that he had participated in 30 sessions of play therapy. Access between A and B with their mother and grandmother was described as being positive and pleasant.
The CFA lawyer told the judge that the main difficulty for these children was that the psychological assessment, which needed to be carried out as a priority, had been stalled until after the completion of the Garda investigation into the allegation. She said that this was the reason why she was making an application to extend the care orders for a period of four months.
The mother’s lawyer told the court that the mother was cooperative and doing her best but that it was clear that nothing could happen until the Garda investigation was completed. The lawyer for the guardian ad litem (GAL) advised the court that the GAL supported the application for the extension of the care orders.
The judge stated that she was satisfied to extend care orders under the circumstances for a period of four months. The social work team leader said that monthly meetings had taken place since the time the allegation had been made. She said that the national liaison policy had been followed. The judge said that, considering that the allegation had been made two and a half years previously, anyone would have to question the lack of progress in this matter.
Judge: “It’s not acceptable. The Child and Family Agency should have been proactive, not reactive. At no time was there a query on behalf of the Child and Family Agency as to what exactly was happening. The court should not have been the person pursuing this. There should have been timed correspondence. There was a complete breakdown by both agencies. [Named psychologist]’s assessment cannot commence”.
The GAL’s lawyer said that she had written to the Gardaí on this matter but that they had refused to engage at all with her. The CFA lawyer said that she also had written to the Gardaí but had got no response.
CFA lawyer: “We rely on what the Gardaí tell us. We are reluctant to interfere with a Garda investigation.”
The judge said that this was not good enough. This matter should have been brought to the court’s attention much sooner. There should have been significant progress made on this investigation two years ago. The judge said she was satisfied that the threshold for the extension of care orders for A and B was met. She listed the matter for a date four months later.
Case resumes four months later
When the matter came back before a different judge a care order extension was also sought for a younger sibling, Child C.
The lawyer for the CFA informed the court that it was seeking a further four-month extension of the care orders for A and B. She informed the judge about the background to the case. Allegations had been made by A and she had suffered serious injuries. The delay in the Garda investigation was preventing the next part of the assessment on the children from taking place.
She referred the judge to the order made by the previous judge dealing with the matter, for the CFA to write to the DPP to seek the timeline of the progress into the investigation of the allegations made. She confirmed that this letter had been sent. She also informed the judge that a professional was engaged and was ready to do the safeguarding assessment as soon as the Garda investigation was completed.
The social worker said that she had been assigned to the case for over two years. She described the autism assessment carried out on B, which concluded that she did not meet the criteria for autism. She said both children were settled in the placement, having now spent almost three years there. Their health was described as good. The social worker told the court that access between the children and their mother was progressing positively. A full course of play therapy had been provided and B was due to start speech and language therapy shortly.
The CFA lawyer asked the social worker if she expected that some clarity would soon be provided from the DPP about the investigation and the social worker replied that she was not aware of a timeline for this. The mother’s lawyer asked about access between A and B and their younger sibling, Child C. The social worker said sibling access had taken place three months previously but it was important that this would be increased. The GAL and her lawyer were present in court and the GAL indicated that she supported the application for a further extension of the care orders for four months.
The judge stated that she noted the position in relation to the Garda investigation. She described it as “very frustrating” but that there was nothing the court could do about it. She hoped it could be completed within the four months of the extension to the care orders. She was satisfied the threshold for the care orders was reached and that the placement was secure. She made an order extending the care orders for A and B for four months, with access to be at the discretion of the CFA. She further ordered that there were to be additional access visits for the siblings during the upcoming school breaks and holidays.
The CFA lawyer told the judge that the CFA was also seeking a four-month extension of the care order for Child C, a very young child, whose father was the father of A and B. The proposed extension was for the same reason as that of his siblings. The lawyer for the father said she had been unable to obtain instructions from her client for some time. The father had previously given his consent for orders relating to C.
The social worker for C informed the judge that he was also awaiting the completion of the Garda investigation. He said he had spoken to the sergeant and had been informed that the file had now been sent on to the DPP. He described the very positive progress C’s mother had made in access visits and said that C had had two overnight access visits with his mother. This reflected how well the mother was getting on. She had now engaged in all the recommendations and with her psychotherapy.
The CFA lawyer asked the social worker if he had ever got any explanation from doctors about the injuries to A. He replied that the pediatrician had been almost positive that the injuries, which were substantial, were caused non-accidentally. Regarding access by C’s father, the social worker said it was erratic at best and had completely ceased in recent times.
The judge said that she noted the application for the four-month extension for C. She spoke to the mother, who was in court, and advised her to work towards getting C back in her own care.
Judge: “At least the file is now gone to the DPP so we may be progressing soon.”
The judge made the order extending the care order for C for four months. Access was to be at the discretion of the CFA. She also ordered that C should have additional access visits with his siblings during the future school breaks of A and B. The judge listed the matter for a date four months later when it was hoped that the Garda investigation would be completed and an outcome reached.