Dublin District Court granted a care order until the age of 18 for a young child in circumstances where four of the child’s other siblings were already subject to care orders.
When the case was called the mother objected, through her barrister, to the presence of the Child Law Project reporter. The objection was brought to the attention of the judge who explained who the CLP reporter was and her entitlement to be in court. The mother continued to object and the judge asked the mother’s barrister if a formal direction would assist and he said it would. The judge made a formal direction that the CLP reporter was staying in the court.
Team leader
The team leader gave evidence and said he had been appointed to the case in 2020. He had prepared a report in support of the application. The specific issues referred to by the team leader were referrals he had received from social workers, the hospital and Dublin City Council. He said that supports had been put in place for the other children who were now subjected to care orders.
He said the mother had attended a mother and baby home and the outcome from that visit was that she did not have the capacity to parent. In addition, a parental capacity assessment had been carried out on both parents and the result of that was that neither parent had the capacity to parent their children.
The key issues appeared to be an inability to take direction from professionals. There was ongoing concern regarding the relationship between the parents which focused on arguing, domestic violence, neglect and emotional abuse. The team leader was asked had any of the previous issues been addressed and he said no. He said a number of recommendations had been made and none of them had been addressed.
The court was told of a recent incident that occurred where the parents had engaged in abusive and threatening behaviour targeted at the key access worker, which included threats to kill. The situation had been made even more difficult as the one previous key access worker who had done great work with the parents would no longer work with them
following a recent incident. The team leader said no other access workers were willing to work with the parents at this stage.
As a result of the incident access has been suspended until such time as another key worker could be identified. The team leader was asked had any services been suggested to help the parents and he said that the previous parental capacity assessment recommended other support services but that the parents had not been willing to engage.
The team leader gave an update on the child and said he was placed with a sibling and was getting on very well. He was meeting his milestones and was attending any appointments. The team leader said that no additional need had been identified and he confirmed the placement was long term matched.
The barrister for the mother asked the team leader a number of questions in relation to access. The team leader agreed with the barrister that access overall in the last year had been stable and in general had been a positive experience and that the mother was generally taking direction.
The court was told that the parents had recently been provided with an access contract and her barrister confirmed that the mother agreed with that access contract. The barrister asked the team leader how soon could access be reinstated. The response was that there needed to be an access worker to supervise and an access plan and a review meeting to be scheduled.
The mother’s barrister said it had been quite confusing for the mother recently where there had been up to four different social workers liaising with her. He asked the team leader about any practical supports for the mother and the team leader said that a number of recommendations had been made on the therapeutic side, but no progress had been made as the mother had not engaged.
The barrister for the mother asked could a potential plan be put in place. The team leader said that the mother had previously not engaged and she had been offered a huge number of supports over the last number of years which had not been successful.
The barrister for the mother challenged the team leader and said it was not proportionate for the CFA to get a care order to 18 in circumstances where the most recent PCA recommendations had not been implemented. The team leader said that the mother had not been able to follow through on her recent stay at a residential placement and could not keep the child safe and could not take directions.
Additional concerns were raised by the mother through her barrister in relation to the attendance of a male relative at sibling access and at respite despite there being safety concerns. The team leader said that there was a safety plan in place and that the relative was not left on his own with any of the children.
The barrister for the mother indicated that the male relative had a criminal conviction in relation to possession of drugs and said it was not appropriate, from the mother’s perspective, for him to be present at access or present during respite time. The team leader said that there were no concerns around him and the children.
The barrister for the mother said that the mother also had concerns about how the child presented at access displaying scratches and having rashes on him and no clean clothes. The team leader said that there was nothing of concern raised by either the public health nurse or the GP when the child had been seen by both in recent days.
The mother’s barrister asked about the times when the mother bought gifts and toys and clothes for the child and she had asked for the child to be dressed in those clothes at access. Despite her requests the child was not dressed in those clothes at access. The team leader said he had asked the foster carer to dress the child in the clothes.
The barrister said that the mother wanted the child to be checked out at the hospital and not by just the GP as the hospitals had scanners and could check for broken bones. The team leader did not see the need for that given that the child had been seen by both the public health nurse and the GP and no concerns were raised.
The barrister said that it was a traumatic day and a traumatic experience for the mother to be present in the court for the full care order hearing.
The team leader accepted that it was a difficult experience and a traumatic experience and agreed that she had shown commitment by turning up at access and it was clear that she loved her child. However, he said there still were concerns regarding her ability to parent.
The team leader was asked about facilitating access if an access worker was found and he said he was open to this. Her barrister indicated that the mother had been offered an apartment to live in with two bedrooms which was clean and warm. The team leader said the other concerns had not changed.
The barrister for the father referred to the relationship between the parents and said that the father’s evidence was that there had been no domestic violence. Yes, they both argued but there was no domestic violence. His barrister asked what services had been provided for the father and she was told no services had been provided as he had only briefly engaged in one of the assessments.
The father’s barrister referred to the fact that he had agreed to the access contract and the team leader said there was no time frame in place as to when access might restart as it required someone who would be willing to work with the parents.
The solicitor for the guardian ad litem asked the team leader whether the placement was long term matched. The team leader felt that the placement was long term matched, however this required further clarification.
The GAL’s solicitor also referred to the access contract and the team leader said it was a rudimentary basic document – that the parents should take directions and that neither of them should be at the other person’s access. It was agreed that that a feature of the access and the parents’ interaction with professionals had been threats, intimidation and gardai involvement with both the team leader, the social worker and the access workers.
The court was told that the access worker’s manager had asked her not to facilitate access due to the fact her own safety was compromised. The team leader said it was difficult to identify another access worker due to the behavioural issues and that had been a persistent issue. The assessor had recommended that it was crucial that the mother engage in trauma-focused therapy. The social work team were willing to support that, however the onus was on the mother to participate.
Parenting capacity assessor
The court rose and following the break the assessor was called to give evidence. However, he was delayed entering the courtroom and had to be escorted by court officials as the mother had barricaded him from coming into the court to give evidence. The mother objected to the assessor giving evidence and the judge overruled her objection.
The assessor confirmed that he had previously conducted cognitive assessments in relation to two of the other children. He said he had had a direct interview with the mother and conducted a cognitive assessment.
The CFA solicitor flagged to the assessor that a fundamental concern was that the assessor had obtained information from the foster mother and that informed his decision. The assessor confirmed that he had worked previously with the foster mother in relation to one of the other children’s assessments and one page had been provided but he did not ask for further information from the foster mother. The key finding from the parental capacity assessment was that the mother had limited insight and an inability to engage with professionals.
He said that the mother had an inaccurate view of the guardian ad litem and had limited family support. There was a number of recommendations the mother did not adhere to in the previous parental capacity assessment including psychotherapy and she said she did not agree with those recommendations. She did not put her children’ needs first.
The assessor said there was little consideration for her children at access. He said she had cognitive function in the low range, but it was not a preclusion to parenting. He said that there were some areas for potential growth but there were additional challenges. Her experiences growing up had an impact on her, but she was quite dismissive of traumatic events, and she did not want to hear the feedback. The assessor said in five years the mother had not developed any insight, and he could not see any development in relation to her relationships with professionals.
His recommendations were trauma-focused therapy, consideration by the mother of the impact on her own children, relationship issues, couples therapy so that she could better manage her interactions, her individual access, a regular review of progress and a multidisciplinary meeting.
On cross examination by the mother’s barrister the assessor confirmed that he had observed an access between the child and his mother and agreed that it was a positive access. He said that access had been going well and that the mother had been appropriate with the child and he had seen the mother respond positively to feedback.
The mother’s barrister said that the mother had been able to acknowledge feedback and implement it.
The mother’s barrister said the feedback meeting was a difficult meeting for the mother. The assessor said the reaction of the mother was the most extreme that he had ever experienced, she had blocked his entrance into the court room. The barrister said that it was an extremely traumatic and sad day for the mother. The assessor did accept that it was a traumatic day for the mother.
The barrister for the mother asked whether it was premature to seek an order to 18 where recommendations made by the assessor had not been implemented. The assessor said the recommendations were not dissimilar to recommendations made following an assessment that was done five years previously, where the mother had said she would not engage in the recommendations.
The barrister said that there was no prejudice to the child if a shorter order was made. The assessor said that the child required the stability of a placement and the evidence before him would not support that idea, given the mother’s profile and vulnerabilities and the fact that it was more difficult to engage with the mother.
Responding to a question from the GAL solicitor concerning the mother’s relationship with the child’s foster mother, the assessor agreed that it was not his role to resolve conflicts and that any previous experiences did not alter the recommendations. He said that he had flagged to the social work team that he had done work in relation to the other children.
The assessor said the mother needed to do psychotherapy in order to reduce her reactivity which was a precursor to everything.
Mother’s evidence
The mother chose to give evidence. She was asked how access had been with her child and she said that on occasion he had no nappies, no clothes, he was scalded, he had scratches on him, his hygiene was lacking. She felt that the child was not being looked after, he had previously worn Pampers nappies and was now wearing ALDI nappies.
The mother agreed that she had enjoyed access for one year but unfortunately access had broken down. She confirmed that she had agreed to the access contract. The mother wanted the child to be brought to the hospital for a review and not just to the doctors. She referred to the child being scalded, having a type of nappy rash, and she had got cream for the child but she said it was still in the bag.
The mother was quite upset that she had previously provided clothes to the foster carers for him but that whenever she saw him at access those clothes were not on him. She was asked to describe the child and she said he liked to watch Peppa Pig. She wanted access reinstated as she said she had heard her child roaring crying and she could hear him screaming and she became very heightened.
The mother again referred to the male relative and said that he had been at the house despite the fact that he was not meant to be out and he was meant to have signed a safety plan.
The mother said she would do a parenting course and she had tried to contact the social worker about this but there had been no response. She said she was open to exploring couples therapy and psychotherapy.
In relation to housing she said she had been fighting through local TDs and the council and had got a letter recently confirming that she would be getting two-bedroomed accommodation the following month. The mother was supportive of the child remaining in care until she had the keys to her new place. She then wanted the child returned to her and was agreeable to a safety plan being put in place.
GAL evidence
The GAL confirmed she had been appointed to the other four children and had known the family for five years at least. She had a good understanding of the financial family dynamics. She was asked to outline what her concerns were initially. She said she knew assessments had been done and that neither of the parents had capacity to parent the three older children. She said that the mother had not been able to follow through on recommendations, she was influenced by her partner and her focus was on him and not on the children.
The GAL said the social worker team leader had got a specialist placement for both parents and the child to conduct a screening assessment but within one week the father left due to non-engagement. The GAL said the mother stayed for a bit, but she would not follow through and get up for the night-time routines. She said the child was at risk and that the staff could not stand over the care of the child in the unit.
The GAL said the mother had been given ample opportunity to prove herself and that they were vulnerable parents, but they had failed to progress with the recommendations. She said that their engagement with all services had been chaotic, they were preoccupied with their own needs and not with the children. She said there had been eight different social workers on the case, some of whom were no longer involved due to poor engagement, unwillingness by the parents to follow through and threats made against them.
The GAL said that she had be attended quite a number of accesses and she had observed 12 accesses between the mother and the child. She said that the mother required prompting and her time was taken up being on the phone with her partner. The guardian said that the mother loved to see the child and some lovely moments were recorded at access. She said the previous access worker had been involved with the family as long as she had but unfortunately the mother involved herself with the father’s access. The key access worker had told the GAL that she was very fearful for her own safety and she had been threatened.
The GAL was aware that a contract for access had been signed by the parents but it was required that a person supervise that access and that was difficult to find a person. The GAL agreed that access needed to be reinstated but that there had to be a parallel plan for the mother to engage in therapy to deal with her dysregulation.
The judge asked where the child was currently placed and she confirmed that he was placed with his sibling. She said the child was flourishing in the placement and that it was a lovely placement. She said that the child was playing and tummy shuffling and he had recently celebrated a birthday. The GAL had attended access in the home of the foster carer and she said that the sitting room floor was covered in toys, the children were thriving and were spotless. The GAL confirmed that she was not recommending a review if the full care order was granted but she did say that she would attend a meeting in relation to access.
She made reference to the male relative and agreed that he was in and out of the house but he did not live in the house, he lived in a Shomera out the back.
The mother’s barrister asked her about the new housing that the mother had been offered. The GAL said that it was a new start and was very positive to hear that, but she still stuck with her recommendations. The GAL said it was best for the child to be with the foster carer till he was 18. She said she would support an access review meeting.
The barrister said there was an alternative care plan that should be considered, where the mother would parent the child in her apartment with a safety plan. The GAL said there had been multiple assessments carried out and all had come to the same conclusion, that the mother did not have the capacity to parent the child.
The barrister for the mother said the issue of the male relative had not been satisfactorily resolved. The GAL replied there was no child protection concerns
The judge rose to consider his judgment.
On his return the judge said that these were section 18 proceedings, the child had been the subject of proceedings for the last year, he was the fifth child of these parents and the previous four children were under full care orders. He referred to the evidence of the social work team leader, the parenting capacity assessor, the mother and the guardian ad litem. He noted that the father’s position was that he was supporting the mother.
The judge referred to the evidence given by the assessor and said that three different assessments had taken place over the years, and the result was the same – that the mother had no capacity to care for the children. He also referred to recommendations that had not been followed up on, psychotherapy that had not been completed and there had been no meaningful changes.
Referring to the GAL’s evidence, he said she had been involved in the case for five years and there had been no significant, consistent changes but that the door was always left open. He referred to the fact that the GAL had said that a short order was not in the child’s best interests.
The judge said he had considered the threshold for an order to 18 notwithstanding the young age of the child and he said that a lesser order was not in the best interests of the child. He said that the recommendations needed to be followed through on and a care order to 18 was required. He noted that the child was placed with his sibling, and he said that the children needed to be prioritised over the mother’s and the father’s needs.
He said that an access review meeting should take place and that the GAL should stay involved in the case for the next two months.