A judge in Dublin Metropolitan District Court granted a care order for a child to the age of majority, which was uncontested, and where the judge praised the grannies of Ireland and said as a nation we are indebted to them for stepping into the breach where their own adult children showed no insight.
The Child and Family Agency (CFA) brought an application for a care order to the age of majority in circumstances where the child’s two half-siblings were also in care. The mother was legally represented and the court heard the father was deceased. The child had a guardian ad litem (GAL), who was present in court. The judge said he also had the benefit of having met with the child in recent weeks.
The barrister for the mother indicated that the mother had previously engaged but was not engaged currently and the barrister had no instructions. The mother had however provided a series of text messages which she wanted to be read out to the court. In them the mother expressed her dissatisfaction with the placement and with the treatment of the child who had been placed with the paternal grandmother.
The social worker was called to give evidence and said that the primary concerns for the child before being taken into care had been emotional abuse, neglect and physical abuse.
The social worker stated that there had been a trajectory plan and the mother initially engaged but now there was no contact. She had made 51 attempts to contact her and had offered her meetings but unfortunately the mother was unable to meet any plans. She said the last engagement had been six months before the hearing. The CFA had lined up a parental capacity assessment (PCA) but it did not work out and none of the concerns had been addressed.
The court was told that the other two children who were in care were linked in with a different social work team and the mother had engaged with that social worker.
The court heard that the child had no contact with the mother and did not want contact with her. The girl had had contact with her half-siblings and that had gone well.
The social worker gave an update to the court on the current placement and said the child was doing fantastically well and had a very good bond with the grandparent and the grandparent was open to supports. The child was involved in extra-curricular activities and had a lot of supports at school.
In the long term, the child’s view was that she did not want to return home. She was fully aware of the court process. The social worker confirmed that the order was both necessary and proportionate.
The GAL, who had been appointed in advance of the interim care order being made, referred to the fact that the child had met with the judge the previous week. She said the mother had done nothing to support reunification and had shown no insight into the issues.
The GAL said the child had been consistent with her view regarding the placement and the GAL did not concur with the views of the mother concerning it. The GAL said that the child had been in the same placement since before the interim care order had been made. There was a lovely warm relationship between the child and the grandmother, there were boundaries in the home and the child felt safe in the house.
The GAL was supportive of the child maintaining a relationship with her half-siblings. The child was in good health and was due to change to secondary school. She was receiving some supports for her mental health.
After hearing the evidence, the judge said that he had met with the child recently. He said she was a competent girl and was attending school. She was aware of the court proceedings and she had told the judge she was looking forward to a holiday and wanted to stay with her grandparent.
He noted the mother was not present but that a series of text message had been read out.
He said the nation was indebted to grannies of the nation especially where they stepped into the breach when their own adult children had no insight. The court said it respected the view of the child that they did not want any contact with the mother.
The care order to 18 was granted with the usual terms. The GAL would be discharged within four weeks.