The District Court judge in a provincial city granted two-year extensions to the care orders for four very young children, two boys and two girls, ranging in age from two to five years. Their mother suffered from addiction issues.
Their mother was represented by a solicitor from the Legal Aid Board, but she had given the solicitor no instructions in relation to the application that was being made by the Child and Family Agency (CFA).
The solicitor for the CFA told the court that the court had previously granted emergency care orders, interim care orders and initial six-month care orders in respect of the children during the previous twelve months and that this application by the CFA was to extend the existing short-term care orders for a further two years.
The allocated social worker for the two older boys told the court that the children’s mother had been known to the social work department for approximately 16 years. Two other older siblings had been previously received into long term care as a result of neglect, and substance abuse and domestic violence on the part of the mother. During this period, the mother had left Ireland to live in the United Kingdom with one of her children who was just one year old at the time and had complex medical needs. However, she had been returned to Ireland by the UK social services.
The social worker said that they had received the first referral regarding the current four children 12 months before. The referral had been made by the Gardaí who reported that two children were on a balcony unsupervised. The balcony was belonging to an apartment that was not their home.
Another referral was made approximately three and a half months later following an incident at a holiday apartment located in a seaside town. It was reported that the mother had come out of the apartment with a bloody nose. Two of the children were with her and were crying, while a third child remained asleep in bed. The mother was in a relationship with a man at the time and had remained in that relationship since.
There was a further incident approximately two months later when the mother had been found under the influence and urinating on the grounds of a local hotel in which she was staying. The mother had wanted her boyfriend to be allowed into her room at the hotel. She had been shouting and had threatened to kill herself. The children had been found running unsupervised on the local busy road. The hotel staff had provided the children with food. The Gardaí had been called again. There was witness evidence of the mother hitting the children.
An order to remove the children had been granted by the court. Two of the children were found to have had bruises.
The social worker said that the mother suffered from mental health issues, addiction and had made poor choices regarding partners. There were domestic violence issues. The mother was currently in emergency accommodation. She had told the social worker that she had been prioritised for social housing, but the social worker was not sure that this had actually occurred.
The social worker and a colleague had met with the mother. She was in denial that she had any issues and had refused to engage with any services. She had no insight in to her issues.
The social worker said that the two boys had progressed well in their foster placements. They were in separate placements. Both of the boys had very delayed speech and as a result, they were receiving speech and language therapy. The older of the two boys had started school and was doing very well. He was playing soccer and generally thriving.
The younger boy was also doing very well. He had had a number of placements but had settled into his current placement very well. He was not yet going to preschool in order to allow him settle properly in his placement. He was suffering from emotional regulation issues and had had a few behavioural issues. An ASD assessment had been recommended.
Access between the mother and the boys was one hour per week. However, the mother had not consistently attended access and had cancelled the access on occasion. This had been very upsetting for both boys who adored their mother.
While the boys had been received into care relatively recently, the social worker said that nothing had really changed in their circumstances and as a result, the two year extension to the care orders for these children was both necessary and proportionate.
The judge was puzzled as to why the CFA was seeking a two-year extension when the circumstances appeared to point towards a longer-term care order, particularly, in light of the fact that the children’s older siblings were the subject of long-term care orders.
The social worker replied that the mother had not yet had a chance to engage. The judge said that the mother had consented to the previous six-month care orders and asked the social worker if this had not been her opportunity to engage. The social worker agreed with the judge that this was the case, but she believed that it was appropriate to allow the mother more time to engage.
A different social worker had been allocated to the two younger girls. The social worker told the court that the two girls had been placed together in a general foster placement and that they were getting on very well and had settled very well.
Their emotional regulation had been difficult initially. In particular, the older girl had had concerning behaviours directed at her foster sibling. However, she had had 10 sessions of a sensory system of therapy and the concerning behaviours had improved a lot.
Both girls were also receiving occupational therapy. They were attending preschool and both were doing well. The younger girl had experienced some speech delay, but this had improved. The GP had reported that the girls were very healthy but that they had missed their childhood vaccinations.
The social worker told the court that the two year extension to the care orders for the girls was necessary and proportionate and that it would be fair to allow the mother to get the help that she needs.
She asked the court if it would appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL) for the girls.
The judge said that having considered the CFA’s applications he was satisfied that it was necessary and proportionate to extend the care orders for the four children for a further two years. He said that he did so in the absence of the mother who had not been present in court and had not given any instructions to her solicitor.
He also appointed two GALs, one for the boys and one for the girls. He listed the matter for review in six months’ time.