A District Court judge in a provincial city granted an application by the Child and Family Agency (CFA) to extend an interim care order for a child (E) diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and pathological demand avoidance. The child’s mother consented to the extension.
Social worker evidence
The social worker said that the previous month the child had been taken into care under section 12 of the Child Care Act 1991 by An Garda Síochána due to immediate and serious risks to her safety. Two days later the District Court granted an emergency care order. The social worker said that the CFA had been involved with the family since 2016, with concerns escalating in April and May 2025, when twelve referrals had been received in April alone due to the mother’s inability to manage the child’s challenging behaviour. The child’s diagnosis included ASD with a profile of pathological demand avoidance.
The social worker stated that the child’s parents were separated, and the father, who lived abroad, was unable to care for the child. The child’s siblings remained with their mother but during a recent incident the child had injured her eldest sister. The social worker stated that the child had described missing her sister while in foster care but that access visits with her family had been positive.
When asked about the incident leading to the section 12 intervention, the social worker said that the child had physically harmed her mother, who had locked herself in the bathroom to manage the child’s behaviour. The social worker said that the CFA had considered a creative community alternative and had applied for occupational therapy and respite services, but no response had yet been received.
The child was in a foster placement, and the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) had closed her case, despite her ongoing mental health needs. The social worker explained that CAMHS had directed the cessation of the child’s prescription a week earlier, but the child’s GP believed that the prescription continued until the end of the following month. The social worker expressed concern that this discrepancy could exacerbate the child’s declining mental health.
The social worker said that the foster carer had recently taken the child to the GP after the child had reported seeing spiders and believing she had cancer in her legs. The GP referred the child to Accident & Emergency. The foster carer had also sought a review of the CAMHS closure but had been unable to see a consultant psychiatrist.
Regarding education, the social worker said the child was following a tailored curriculum in mainstream classes and performing well. The child had regular contact with her mother and siblings and had expressed a desire to return home. The social worker stated that reunification would require a comprehensive care plan and support package, which were not yet in place. The social worker confirmed that the interim care order extension was proportionate to protect the child’s health, welfare, and best interests.
Cross examination by the mother’s lawyer
The mother’s lawyer confirmed her consent to the extension of the order to ensure her daughter’s safety until a support package could be put in place. The lawyer said that a CAMHS review meeting was scheduled for later in the month and asked if the CFA would attend. The social worker confirmed they would. When asked about therapeutic supports, the social worker said none were yet in place.
The judge asked whether two months was necessary to secure respite services, disability support, National Educational Psychological Service (NEPS) involvement, and CAMHS participation, as well as to consult the guardian ad litem (GAL). The social worker confirmed that two months was required. The judge expressed concern about the child’s declining mental health and the CAMHS case closure, noting that “a lot can happen in two months,” and directed the CFA to follow up on these issues.
Decision
The judge, having read the GAL’s report and noting the mother’s consent, granted a two-month extension of the interim care order. The case was listed for mention in four weeks to receive an update from the GAL.