The District Court granted an interim care order for a girl who had already been in voluntary care with the CFA for more than a year, on the consent of both parents. The mother was in prison. The court noted that the main outstanding issue was the need to put an access plan in place.
The CFA representative applied for an initial ICO, saying the child had been in voluntary care for over a year. She told the court she understood that both parents consented to the order and that there was agreement to list the matter for a mention hearing to deal with access.
The mother was produced from custody and was legally represented. Her solicitor confirmed her consent to the ICO and said her primary goal was to sort out access, as she had not had contact with her daughter for some time. The mother hoped to take up temporary release in due course. Her solicitor said it would be important for the CFA to have a clear plan regarding whether the mother would remain in the Dóchas Centre for a period or secure early or temporary release, so that access arrangements could be put in place.
The father, represented by a law centre, also consented to the ICO to a date in the new year. He had no objection to a mention date to deal with access.
The GAL’s representative supported the application. She said the GAL did not yet know what the child understood about her mother’s situation and was not sure that an access plan could realistically be put in place within a two-week timeframe. She described that as “simply unrealistic”.
She said the child was asking about her father and that it was very important that an assessment in relation to him be carried out. There was also a need for “life story work”, and she emphasised that the case was at a very early stage.
The CFA representative said the social worker would visit the mother in prison and that it was important to start formulating an access plan. She suggested that a mention date be set for the end of the month, in around three to three and a half weeks’ time.
The judge asked whether the timeframe was realistic. Having heard the submissions, he noted that both parents consented and that the GAL supported the application. No proofs were sought and no oral evidence was required. The judge granted the ICO, noting that the child had already been in voluntary care for a significant period and that both parents were consenting to an order for longer than the standard 28-day period. He said an access plan had to be developed.
The judge recorded that the mother remained in custody and was due for release at a point in the following year, although there was a possibility of temporary release earlier. He extended the ICO to mid-January and listed the matter for mention at the end of November, with legal representatives only, to review access planning. He also made a production order for the mother to be brought from custody for the January date.