A judge in the District Court in a provincial city granted care orders until the age of 18 for three children who had experienced domestic violence and neglect.
The mother was not present in court but was legally represented. Her lawyer informed the court that the mother stated she had COVID-19 but had not provided any proof of diagnosis. The solicitor stated that the mother was not consenting to the application but had given no instructions to object.
The CFA solicitor stated that the father was supportive of the application but had not been involved in the proceedings to date. The guardian ad litem (GAL) was present and legally represented.
The judge stated that there was no evidence before the court to establish that the mother had COVID-19 and he was satisfied to proceed in her absence.
Evidence of the social worker
The social worker told the court that she had spoken with the children’s father, who was consenting to the application for full care orders. He had previously consented to every other application brought by the CFA and was content for the hearing to proceed.
The children had first come to the attention of the CFA in 2018 following a referral concerning domestic violence in the family home. At that time, the mother had availed of domestic violence supports and left the family home with the children. One of the children had witnessed the father hitting the mother. The mother had returned to the family home with the children on an intermittent basis.
She later entered a relationship with a different partner. In 2023, the middle child witnessed her mother being choked during an incident of domestic violence in that relationship. The social worker said the mother had a history of returning to partners following serious incidents of domestic violence.
There had been ongoing concerns regarding neglect since the CFA’s involvement. The children had frequently presented at school dirty, with greasy hair and hungry. There was no heat, light or electricity in the family home, and most food consisted of non-perishable items provided by a local homelessness service. The children were reported to be eating cereal without milk.
The school had repeatedly highlighted these issues. In 2023, the social work department at the CFA became aware of the full extent of the neglect. The children had missed significant input from services, and there had been multiple incidents of the mother attending the school under the influence of alcohol, according to the social worker.
In an incident in August 2023, the mother had taken the children out drinking with her for the day. The mother had been unable to find her way home and was unable to speak. The oldest child had had to direct the taxi driver. The social worker described this as an extremely concerning incident, and the children continued to recall this incident to social workers since coming into care.
The social worker stated that the oldest child had disclosed being hit during one incident of domestic violence. The social worker stated that the mother had no insight into the impact of her behaviour on the children and, when questioned, consistently related matters back to the impact on herself.
A reunification plan had been shown to the mother in 2024, but no progress had been made on any of the recommendations. The social worker stated that conditions had not improved since the children were removed and had in fact worsened, as the mother no longer had a family home and was living in a different county with a different partner.
In relation to access, the CFA had attempted to engage with the mother, but she had not attended since the previous September. She had been offered twice-monthly access together with supports, but had not availed of them. The CFA had purchased bus tickets for her travel. The mother had recently requested accommodation for access nights, but the social worker stated that this would only be considered if the mother made attempts to avail of access as it stood. The children had refused to call their mother on the telephone as they wished to see her in person.
The oldest child was suspected of having autism and was under the care of the Children’s Disability Network Team (CDNT), which had been slow to complete an assessment. The social work department had attempted to arrange a private assessment but had been informed that the CDNT assessment would take place within a month. The social worker stated that the child was progressing well but had significant additional needs.
The middle child had transferred from the CDNT to primary care and was receiving occupational therapy. She required support with everyday functions such as showering and dressing.
The youngest child had poor concentration, frequently moving from one activity to another. She was under primary care, with occupational therapy and speech and language therapy input. She had commenced play therapy in October of the previous year. The social worker stated that all three children would require ongoing supports for the rest of their lives.
Regarding the father, the social worker said that he had been more consistent in attending access in recent times. He had developed a relationship with the oldest boy, with access of approximately forty minutes for the oldest boy and thirty minutes for the two girls. He consistently brought snacks and engaged positively with the children.
When asked why the CFA was seeking care orders to the age of 18 years, the social worker stated that the mother had no understanding of the impact of her behaviour or of the CFA’s concerns. She believed that if the children were returned, the situation would revert to previous levels of neglect. The social worker acknowledged that the children loved their mother. She handed up photographs of the children, their birth certificates, and a letter of consent from the father.
The judge noted that he had read the reports and observed the history of domestic violence, neglect, alcohol abuse and unsanitary conditions within the family home.
He queried whether the mother’s current relationship involved coercive control. The social worker confirmed that it did, and said that the current partner appeared to listen in on conversations and that there had been a recent incident of domestic violence. When asked if the mother prioritised her relationships with men above the children, the social worker replied: “Yes, she prioritises her needs above the children”.
Evidence of the guardian ad litem
The GAL told the court that the children had experienced trauma, were cognitively impaired and faced multiple challenges. They required a range of assessments that needed to be progressed urgently. The middle child had an intellectual disability and the oldest child had a query of possible autism. There were long waiting lists for services, and the children would be at significant risk of harm if returned to their mother.
The GAL had had no contact from the mother since the previous year. She expressed concern about the mother’s presentation at the last access visit, when she appeared to be saying goodbye and her mental health was poor. The mother had apologised to the children and hugged them. The GAL said the mother was pleasant and warm during access, but the overall situation had been deteriorating.
The GAL welcomed the father’s increased involvement. He had previously had contact but had not fully appreciated the extent of the difficulties. He had since shown consistency with access, particularly fortnightly contact with the oldest child, and was developing relationships with all the children.
The GAL highlighted the fact that the youngest child struggled to self-soothe and regulate her emotions. The oldest child was better able to enjoy access visits but did not understand why his mother was not attending. The foster carer for the oldest child was very fond of him, and his speech and language had improved since coming into care. The GAL described the placement for the two girls as one of the best she had seen in her professional career. The children were content, felt loved, and called their foster carer “Nana”.
The GAL supported the current level of access and believed the CFA would continue to facilitate it. She supported the making of care orders until the age of 18 and suggested a review in approximately two years. She hoped that family connections would progress. Her outstanding concern related to psychological assessments for the children, and she expressed no trust in the CDNT process.
Judge’s ruling
The judge found that the threshold for the application had been met and that the intervention sought by the CFA was proportionate. He made full care orders for each child until the age of 18 years. He directed that the GAL be discharged after six months. The case was to be reviewed in two years’ time, together with the standard DMD directions for the reappointment of the GAL.