Dublin District Court considered a number of cases involving placement issues during 2025. We publish a sample below.
It adjourned a review of a case where the Child and Family Agency had re-entered it as the child’s placement was at risk of breakdown. The court was told that the mother wanted reunification with her child. The court was informed that the child had already been subjected to eight placement changes. There were already interim care order proceedings before the court which were due back at the end of the month.
The court was told that a potential foster family had been identified but that the family wanted to meet with the child before fully deciding on whether the child was a fit for them. The court also heard that the placement was only available for one year.
The GAL had serious concerns over the placement issue and had issued a section 47 application. The solicitor for the GAL told the court that another limited placement was not something the GAL supported. He added that it seemed like the child was going to be subjected to a type of “audition” before the potential foster family decided if the child was suitable. The solicitor for the GAL indicated the section 47 would take some time if it was proceeded with.
The judge said it would have a devastating effect on the child if the child was rejected again. He said it was hugely concerning to the court and there was much uncertainty. He adjourned the review to the following week for an update after the meeting between the child and the foster family.
In another case the Child and Family Agency brought an application to Dublin District Court for the extension of interim care orders for two children where the placement of one was about to break down. However, the foster carers had agreed to keep the child until an alternative placement could be secured.
The court was told that the children’s mother suffered with her mental health but the children were having weekly access. The plan on the table was for the child to return to the care of her grandmother who lived with the mother.
The barrister for the mother indicated that her client was consenting to the ICO extension, however there were complications in that the plan was to return the child to the care of the grandmother who lived with the mother. The mother of the child was the tenant.
It was envisaged that the child, in the absence of any other option, would return home to the care of her grandmother by the end of the month. In the interim there would need to be a custody application hearing and an application for legal aid for the grandmother.
Discussions were ongoing with the CFA to look at funding a solicitor for the grandmother in order for her to bring the necessary custody application.
The court was informed that the two children had different fathers and one of the children’s fathers was a non-national. He had immigration status and had previously been in the jurisdiction but the solicitor had been unable to contact him.
The solicitor for the GAL indicated that there were concerns for the mother’s mental health. He said the current plan that the child to be placed with her grandmother was back on the table as there was no other viable placement, according to the CFA. This was despite the fact that the same proposal had been on the table previously and had been considered and dismissed. He said many of the concerns outlined by the other legal representatives were echoed by the solicitor for the GAL. He said the option was only being considered as there was the unavailability of a longer-term placement.
The judge extended the ICO for a period of 28 days but listed the case for mention before the court in a week’s time regarding the “proposed return home”. The judge said the court needed to be persuaded that the CFA could not find a long-term placement for the child in the 26 counties.
In another case the judge refused to accept out-of-hours placement as an option for child whose foster care arrangement had broken down. The case was adjourned for a week and the judge directed the Child and Family Agency (CFA) to bring it back before Dublin District Court to update the court then.
The CFA solicitor told the court that the child’s placement with a foster family was due to end in two weeks’ time. She said that supports had been put in place but had not been sufficient.
The court was told that the child was on pre-planned respite for one week but that currently there were no placement options once the foster placement ended and the only option was an out-of-hours placement.
The judge interrupted and said that that was not an option to give to the court. He said it was not an option for a child in care. He asked: “Would the head of Tusla stand over such an arrangement?” He said the court was not accepting that option.
The solicitor for the mother said her client was extremely concerned and wanted to know what the plan was. The solicitor for the father informed the court that the child was smoking, drinking alcohol and was regularly leaving the placement.
The solicitor for the GAL said it was a very complex case and the GAL was considering whether to issue a section 47 application seeking the court’s directions.
The judge adjourned the case to the following week for a full update, noting the GAL might bring a section 47 application.