A judge in a regional court heard a criminal matter concerning child welfare on a child care day. The CFA prosecuted a mother with truancy following her daughter’s failure to attend secondary school. The court heard that the child had almost 100 per cent non-attendance at school for the previous three years. The child was in the care of the mother and there were no court orders in place.
The social worker’s evidence
The court heard child was currently enrolled in second year, but should be in third year. The child had not attended school since first year. In first year the child attended three partial days of school. All of the attendances were for scheduled appointments with the school regarding attendance.
Numerous attempts had been made to try to facilitate the child’s attendance in school. CAMHS were involved initially but the child was discharged following a report. The child had indicated that she was suffering from anxiety relating to school. CAMHS reported that the child had no mental health diagnosis that would prevent her from attending school.
The social work department had also looked into alternative educational options which had smaller class sizes. The child was also referred for speech and language therapy, and a further referral to a primary care support unit. Despite attempts by the social work department over a number of years, no progress had been made in relation to the child’s attendance in school.
Recently, the child had been referred to a Garda Youth Diversion level three course which met for three hours twice a week. The child attended twice and then refused to return. The school had offered flexible alternatives to assist in her return to school. A reduced timetable, or a subject of the child’s choosing on a day, were proposed on a number of occasion but no efforts were made by the child. A Youthreach programme had also been suggested but the mother did not think it was appropriate.
The mother’s evidence
The mother indicated that she would be entering a guilty plea as she could not prove otherwise. She was informed that the penalties if she was found guilty were a class D fine (€1,000) or one month in prison.
The mother gave evidence. She accepted that her child had not attended school in three years. She said that when she tried to get the child to attend school she screamed and roared and she could not get the child out the front door. The mother explained that the child had been badly bullied in the later years of primary school but the mother was unaware of this at the time. The child had stopped attending school for a period and then recommenced school in sixth class and made her confirmation.
The mother told the court that she would try to support the child to engage with services, however she could not be in groups of more than three or four.
The mother also told the court that it was just her and the child in the house, but that the child’s father had tried to assist her. The mother minded the child full-time. The child had limited social interaction outside the neighbours.
The mother accepted the seriousness of the situation and the charge. She was entering a plea of guilty and understood the seriousness of the possible sentence. The mother also said that she understood that if she was given a custodial sentence her child would be taken into the care of the state.
The matter was adjourned to the next child care court sitting in 28 days’ time. The judge requested an update from the social work team regarding whether or not it was appropriate to bring an interim care order application or a supervision order application for the child.
When the case came back before the court the solicitor for the CFA told the judge that the CFA had assessed the family to determine if the threshold existed for the CFA to bring an application under the Child Care Act 1991.
The social worker said that a NEPS assessment was recommended by the school and the social work team, but there was no timeline for the assessment to begin. She said that there were no grounds for an application to be brought under the Child Care Act. Both the mother and the father had engaged in community supports.
The judge acknowledged that the social work team did not believe that there were grounds to bring child care proceeding and that the parents had tried on numerous occasions to get the child to go to school. However, there was grave concerns regarding the appalling school attendance and that a NEPS assessment was required.
The judge was not able to make directions in a criminal matter regarding the NEPS assessment, but he asked the CFA to convey the urgency of the matter to the Department of Education.
The matter was adjourned pending the NEPS assessment.