Dublin District Court granted a full care order for a child currently in voluntary care in the absence of both parents, who had not been engaging with the court process.
The application related to a 15-year-old boy who was currently in care subject to a voluntary care agreement. The solicitor for the Child and Family Agency stated that they were now applying for a care order under Section 18 as the placement had been put at risk due to the mother’s interference and threats to disrupt the placement.
Neither parent attended court, and solicitors for the Child and Family Agency stated that all parties had been on notice of this hearing for some time but that the mother had refused to engage with the court process and that she was no longer legally represented. The Agency’s solicitor also stated that the mother had texted the social worker that morning requesting an adjournment of the case, but the social workers could not agree to this due to their concerns about the risk to the placement coupled with the lack of plan for reunification.
The solicitor for the guardian ad litem stated that the guardian agreed with this position and agreed that the matter should be progressed that day. The court was told that the mother in the case did also contact the guardian ad litem looking to have the matter adjourned. The solicitor for the guardian stated that they were bound to convey this position to the court but that they did not agree with it, stating that the guardian was concerned that the mother had been acting in such a way as to frustrate the child settling in the residential unit and acting in such a way as the try and frustrate the court process.
The social worker gave evidence, stating that she had contacted the mother over several days prior to the hearing and that the mother had only replied on the morning of the hearing seeking an adjournment.
The social worker gave evidence that access was challenging and disruptive, stating that the young person was more engaging and communicative with staff and other young people in his placement when he was not in contact with their mother. However, the young person became withdrawn and disruptive following access and contact. Many of the visits ended in loud arguments between the youth and his mother, with the mother engaging in shouting and verbal abuse. These behaviours were concerns reported to the social work department before the young person had come into care, and the social worker stated that the fact they continued was a reflection of the mother’s challenges with understanding her behaviour and her ability to meet the young person’s needs.
The social worker stated in evidence that the order was necessary and proportionate and in the best interests of the young person.
The guardian ad litem gave evidence, stating that she too believed that the order was necessary, proportionate and in the child’s best interests. The guardian expressed particular concern about the mother’s attempts to undermine the placement, stating she had encouraged the youth to run away from his placement, and that she had developed a coded talk with him to enable her to undermine the care staff.
The judge stated he was satisfied that the threshold was met for a care order under Section 18, and that the order was in the best interests of the child and that it was necessary and proportionate. The order was granted until the young person was 18. The matter was listed for review in advance of the young person turning 18 to allow and aftercare review. The judge also granted a Section 37 order relating to access, keeping access at the discretion of the Child and Family Agency.