An emergency care order came before Dublin District Court in respect of a child already under a voluntary care arrangement for the previous 10 months. The child’s mother was in attendance. The parties had had discussions and as a preliminary point it was agreed between them that a guardian ad litem should be appointed and the parties had agreed the name of a potential GAL, subject to the court’s approval.
An additional complication in the case was that the child’s existing placement was due to end that week and the case was already listed before the court in the days following the hearing of the emergency care order.
A key concern for the child was that they really needed a special care arrangement to be put in place. However, the child did not meet the criteria on age grounds. It was however agreed that a long-term solution was required.
The mother was represented in court and her solicitor stated that she had engaged with the process. He said that the child had already had six placements. He said that there was a history of risk-taking behaviour and a history of absconding and that there had been three previous serious incidents. The mother was not opposed to the emergency care order. Her solicitor said her key objective was that the child was kept safe and the overall opinion was that she was not safe.
The social worker was called to give evidence and she said that the issues the family had experienced with the child were also those of the experienced professionals dealing with her.
The judge rose to the read the social work report.
When the judge returned he asked about to the current whereabouts of the child and he was informed that the child was in the placement which was due to end within the coming days. The court was informed that ongoing work was being done between the CFA and the HSE regarding the placement and a number of meetings had been scheduled for that day.
The gardai were also in attendance but were allowed to leave as the basic facts of the case had been agreed.
The court heard from the social worker that the child was seen by medical professionals but was not being treated for any medical condition. Serious allegations had been made and were being investigated and there were plans for specialist interviews to take place to ground the allegations that had been made. A specialist garda interview, by a female garda, was scheduled to take place.
The court was told that the child’s mother had attempted to make contact with the placement to speak to the child but she had been unable to speak to her as the child was asleep. The court heard that it was difficult to have a conversation with the child and the child was very withdrawn. The relationship was very broken.
The solicitor for the CFA confirmed that the placement was not a secure placement and that the windows and doors could not be locked. The legislation to have the child put in a secure placement did not cover a child who was not 11 years of age. A referral to CAHMS had been made and a meeting was to take place.
The social worker told the court that the child did not have a smartphone so as to eliminate the child accessing people who were a negative influence.
The judge made the Emergency Care Order and appointed a GAL to the child. He also asked if there was anything further he could do or any orders he could make to safeguard the child.
He made a section 47 direction to dispense with the consent of the mother to allow the specialist garda interview to take place with just the consent of the social worker and for any medical review or treatment to be accessed. The solicitor for the mother was clear that the mother was not objecting to this direction and the mother was keen to obtain supports.The parties agreed that it was essential that an assessment of the child’s needs be carried out and addressed and that any therapeutic interventions needed to be identified to understand why the child was presenting as she was. The child had been in alternative care for the previous 10 months.
The case was listed for mention due to the placement issue and would come back to court following the emergency care order.
Following this hearing, the High Court made an exception for this child and admitted her to special care.