Dublin District Court extended an interim care order (ICO) for a four-month-old boy for 28 days after both parents consented to the extension. The judge declined an application from the Child and Family Agency (CFA) to set the matter down for a full care order hearing, stating that the child’s young age reduced the urgency for a permanent decision and that both parents should be given an opportunity to engage in drug treatment.
The guardian ad litem (GAL) could not attend the hearing but was legally represented. The CFA solicitor applied to extend the ICO. The court heard that at the previous date the CFA had sought care order hearing dates due to limited parental engagement. Access remained suspended, and the parents had not engaged with care review meetings.
The mother, represented by her solicitor, consented to the extension. She intended to enter a residential treatment programme in six weeks, a six-week placement in Tiglin. Her solicitor opposed setting the matter down for a full care order hearing at this stage.
The judge asked whether she had previously entered a drug treatment programme, and was told she had not. Her solicitor said the mother was “making progress” and was seeking to become substance-free.
The father was legally represented and he consented to the extension for 28 days only. He was currently undertaking a benzodiazepine detoxification programme with the goal of entering further treatment, but did not yet have a date for admission.
The legal representative for the GAL noted they supported the application to extend the ICO. The GAL had recently visited the child and was “very happy” with how he was doing in his placement. She had also met the parents and exchanged photographs with them, but continued to have concerns about their circumstances.
The social worker told the court that the reasons for the child’s placement continued to exist. The baby was very happy and content in his current placement.
Parental engagement with the CFA had been limited. The parents had not attended access review meetings. Some credit was given for contacting the social worker on one occasion, when the mother had been required to attend the criminal courts.
The CFA considered it necessary to set the matter down for a full care order hearing. The social worker said the initial ICO had been made in July, and it was important for the child to have permanency. The criteria for continuing the ICO were met, and a full care order hearing date was required to safeguard the child’s rights.
The mother’s solicitor said her client’s non-attendance at meetings had been due to outstanding bench warrants, which were now dealt with. She asked whether the mother entering treatment was a positive development, and the social worker agreed, saying she welcomed the mother’s engagement with drug services.
The solicitor referred to the social worker having received the mother’s urine test results from 11 September, which were positive for cocaine, benzodiazepines and cannabis. She asked whether, at this early stage of the mother’s treatment, it was appropriate to fix a full care order hearing date. The social worker replied that permanency remained important.
The mother’s solicitor said the child, being only four months old, would not have any real concept of the proceedings. The social worker maintained that a plan was still necessary.
The judge was satisfied that the grounds continued to exist for extending the ICO and noted that both parents consented. The ICO was extended for 28 days, to 26 November.
The CFA also sought to have the matter set down for a full care order hearing. The GAL took a neutral position on this application, while both parents opposed it.
The judge accepted the social worker’s evidence but said it would not be prejudicial to the child not to set the matter down at this stage. She referred to the very young age of the child and said this lessened the urgency for a permanent solution.
“I’m not going to put this matter down for a hearing date,” she said, adding that this would give the parents an opportunity to engage with drug treatment services. She noted that her decision did not prevent the CFA from making the same application before another judge at a later date.
The case was listed for further review on 21 January, allowing time for the parents to demonstrate progress in treatment.