Dublin District Court adjourned a case for a further section 47 application after hearing that a teenager had recently been missing for several days and had stayed in an apartment described as unsafe, including being used by drug users. The court heard that a special care application was being prepared but would not be ready for the earliest possible date.
At the hearing, the CFA solicitor told the court that a decision had been made the previous week to apply for special care. The social work department was in the process of preparing the special care application. However, given the work involved, it was unlikely to be ready for the early hearing date that had initially been identified. She said the young person had stabilised “to an extent”. He was no longer missing, which she described as “a low bar,” as he had previously been missing for five days. She said he now seemed to be staying put but that there remained serious concerns.
Counsel for the GAL said the priority was that the special care application be made. She told the court that when the young person had gone missing he had been in “a crack den” during the week. His aunt had reported that the apartment had no electricity and was visited by numerous drug users. She said she was instructed to bring a section 47 application and sought an early date within the week.
The CFA solicitor said it would not be possible to have the special care application ready by then. Counsel for the GAL said the intended section 47 application would seek a statutory declaration from the CFA within seven days, effectively requiring a clear timeline for the special care application.
The judge said that the Friday list was already very full, with close to fifty cases. He acknowledged the seriousness of the situation and said he was concerned about the young person, but also had to be realistic about the court’s capacity. He said that in the circumstances he was minded to list the matter on the following Tuesday instead.
The case was adjourned to that Tuesday for the section 47 application to be heard.
When the case resumed no special care application had yet been lodged. The court adjourned the matter for a further week, with liberty to bring a S.47 application if necessary, and set internal timelines for the preparation of the special care application.
Counsel for the guardian ad litem (GAL), told the court there had been an expectation that a special care application would be made, but conversations were ongoing between the social workers and other professionals about whether the teenager met the threshold. She reminded the court that a decision to refer the case for special care had been made more than two weeks earlier. She said this related to a very vulnerable young man and that a further delay of a week or two was “simply untenable”.
Counsel for the GAL said that, in the GAL’s view, the only effective step open to her was to bring a section 47 application seeking directions. She told the court that special care, as the judge was aware, was tantamount to a finding that a child was at risk of death, and that it was therefore not something to be approached lightly. However, she argued that “not as many hurdles” needed to be jumped as the CFA appeared to suggest. She sought directions that the special care committee meet earlier.
The CFA solicitor said special care was not “simply a tick-the-box” exercise. He said there had been extensive consideration by the social work department of whether the threshold was met. The aim was to have the application ready by a date towards the end of the month, and if permission were granted, to lodge it ahead of the next listed court date. He accepted that he could not prevent counsel for the GAL from bringing a S.47 application if she decided to do so.
The judge said he would list the matter again the following week, with liberty for the GAL to bring an application if required. He noted that the next meeting of the special care committee was expected later in the month and that the application would have to be lodged in advance of that meeting. He understood that the referral was with the regional chief officer, though the CFA solicitor confirmed it had not yet progressed that far.
The judge adjourned the case to the same day the following week. He said that by that stage it should be clear whether the outstanding queries had been resolved and whether the special care application would proceed. He granted liberty to enter an application.
Counsel for the GAL said that unless everything had clearly been done by then, the GAL would feel obliged to bring a section 47 application. She emphasised that the child was in a “serious and severe situation”.
The judge said he understood and informally set a deadline a few days earlier than the committee date to ensure movement on the case.