Dublin District Court reviewed long-running orders concerning two children, noting the impact of a recent placement breakdown which led to a temporary placement in a distant rural area, and the father’s wish to explore video contact from prison. The matter was adjourned for a further review in the New Year.
When the case was first called, the father, who was in custody, had not yet been produced and the matter was left stand. On the second call, the CFA representative updated the court.
The court heard that there had been a placement breakdown, resulting in the children being placed in rural area far from home. One of the children, a girl, was non-verbal and had autism. She remained in her placement and had particular needs. The CFA had made referrals for an autism assessment, for an educational assessment, and for occupational therapy. An application had also been made for her to attend a special school closer to Dublin.
An access plan was in place for the mother. The court was told that she generally attended access with her daughter but was less consistent in attending access with her son.
The father was produced from prison and represented. He expected to be released in the coming years. He was not currently seeking physical access, but his barrister asked the court to support the exploration of video access, given the distance to the children’s current placement and the practical difficulties for in-person visits. The father had withdrawn from substances while in custody and reduced his methadone use.
The GAL’s representative agreed that the case should return to court in the New Year for a further review.
The judge said he understood that the current placement was a short-term response to the breakdown of the previous placement. He noted the particular needs of the girl, including the plan for special schooling. He accepted that geography and travel posed significant difficulties for access and said these should be taken into account when planning contact.
The judge directed that any contemplated change in placement should be brought back before the court. He ordered the matter to return in mid-January for a review and update on the conditions of the children’s care. He also made a production order for the father to attend that review hearing, to facilitate his participation and further discussion of video contact.