A District Court judge in a provincial city granted eight-day emergency care orders for three children following an out-of-hours call to Tusla, after a member of the public brought the youngest child to a Garda station. The three children were two young boys, Child A and Child B, both of secondary school age, and a young girl, Child, who was still in primary school.
The social worker told the court that the Child and Family Agency (CFA) had received a notification to its out of hours service when the Gardaí had invoked their powers under section 12 of the Child Care Act 1991 to take the young girl into care.
The mother of the children had been drinking and had brought the children into the city with her. The social worker understood that the mother had only recently moved to the city from the west of Ireland. There had been a prior referral for domestic violence made earlier in the year in respect of the father. The mother had had three other children, now adults, all of whom had been subjects of care proceedings due to the mother’s addiction and chaotic life.
The social worker said that the CFA was seeking emergency care orders for all of the three children as it had significant concerns that the children were at immediate risk. She said that those concerns arose from the mother’s addiction, the presence of domestic violence in the relationship and the family’s previous history.
The children’s father was living in one room in shared accommodation in a nearby town. He worked full-time and was not in a position to take the children.
The social worker said that the earlier referral had been made about three months previously and that the case had been awaiting allocation for initial assessment. The earlier referral related to an incident in which the mother had been assaulted by the children’s father. She said that the assault had been of such an intensity that the mother had had to receive staples to her head. The mother had felt suicidal at the time.
She also said that the mother had been seeking homeless accommodation for herself and the three children. The children’s maternal grandfather lived in a suburb of the city. Initially, the mother, father and the children had stayed with the maternal grandfather. However, the decision had been made that the mother and children should get their own accommodation.
The social worker had spoken with the grandfather prior to the court hearing. He had advised her that there had been issues of the children being left in his care and that the mother would go without contact for a number of days. The children were staying with their grandfather at the time of the hearing. She had not spoken with the children yet.
The eldest child, A, had got on a train by himself and made his way to the grandfather’s house. B had asked his mother to go home repeatedly. Eventually, he had made the decision to get a bus. The youngest child, C, had been found by a member of the public in the city and had been brought to a garda station two days earlier. The section 12 order had been invoked by a Garda, at around 9 pm. The Garda had tried to contact the mother but her phone had gone to voicemail. The social worker was worried that, during a two-hour period, the mother had not noticed the children had been missing.
The mother had told the social worker that she had been living with the children’s father in the UK for a number of years. The relationship had become difficult and so she had come back to Ireland to stay with her own father. She and the children had lived with her father and his partner. The children’s father had been there as well. However, there had been an incident of domestic violence and the couple had split permanently.
The social worker said that the mother had had no issue with the father’s relationship with the children. However, she had had some difficulties with her own father’s partner who she said had been drinking in the house. She had decided to move out with the children and was currently seeking rented accommodation. She was in emergency homeless accommodation at the time of the hearing.
The mother had acknowledged what happened two days previously. She had met a lady, who was known to her, and another family member in town. She realised that she had made a catastrophic mistake and she had said that she would work with the social worker to ensure that it did not happen again. She was prepared to give an undertaking not to have any further drink. She still had the support of her father.
The social worker said that she did not believe this was the right time to return the children to their mother. She said that the emergency care order would give the CFA time to assess the situation. She did not feel that it was safe for the children just now.
The social worker acknowledged that the mother had been subjected to domestic violence and that she had taken steps to protect herself and the children in the past. She was not blaming the mother for being the victim of domestic violence. She was concerned that children had had a very turbulent time. The social worker needed to be sure that the mother would be able to provide the children with a stable environment.
She acknowledged that the mother had got the children to school and to summer camps in the past. She also acknowledged that there had been a number of tragedies within her family earlier in the year. However, she said that part of her work would be to build safety networks for the mother.
The mother told the court that she accepted that she had had a few drinks while her children were in her care. She was in a B&B 24/7. She had just gone out for a drink. Her father had said that she had been missing, but that had been just one incident.
She had left her partner, the children’s father, after the domestic violence incident to protect the children. She did not want to leave her children in her father’s house as his partner drank seven or eight cans a night. She said: “I’m doing everything on my own, I’m doing my best.”
Having heard the evidence of the social worker and the mother, the judge was satisfied in all the circumstances to grant emergency care orders for eight days in respect of all three children for the protection of their health and welfare.
The matter was due back in court for an interim care order application the following Monday.