Dublin District Court made an interim care order for two brothers after hearing evidence of extreme neglect, long-standing social work concerns and the mother’s involuntary detention on psychiatric grounds. The judge also made the additional orders sought by the guardian ad litem (GAL), including directions for written updates and for the regional chief officer to attend court.
The matter had first been before the court the previous week, when an emergency care order had been granted. The Child and Family Agency (CFA) solicitor said the case now returned for an interim care order application. He told the court that the mother had means to instruct a solicitor and had been trying to procure representation, but she had since been involuntarily detained in Connolly Hospital and was not in a position to give instructions. The father was no longer living in the family home but had been served, and a declaration of service was before the court.
Although the GAL had been in court earlier, he was not available when the matter was reached, and his report was handed in on affidavit. The judge read the report and asked whether a child in care review date had yet been set. The CFA said it had not.
The social worker confirmed the contents of her report and said the threshold for the order was met. She told the court that Child A, of primary school age, had been living with both parents and that there had been social work involvement since his birth. The agency had longstanding concerns about whether the parents could meet either child’s needs. Child A would wander the streets on his own and was almost always left unsupervised. He would make his own way to school and often arrived hungry. Repeated attempts had been made to provide family supports, but the parents declined them.
The social worker said both parents struggled with addiction. The mother had been on methadone but had stopped abruptly after what she described as an “encounter with God”, and then became paranoid. She became convinced the father was trying to kill her and forced him out of the house. The social worker said that while the parents were roughly able to cope together, once the mother was alone her mental health significantly deteriorated.
Child B, a toddler, had also been neglected. Neither of the children had medical cards and they were never taken to the GP. The parents described Child A as a “runner” and said they could not manage him. The children were regularly left while the parents stayed in bed throughout the school day.
The court heard that it was difficult to know whether Child B’s developmental difficulties arose from an underlying condition or from neglect. The social worker had ultimately made medical card applications herself because the parents would not do so, despite repeated requests that they bring the children to a GP.
The social worker said she had made several efforts to secure help for the mother, but these had been declined. In mid-January, the social work department brought the mother to a psychiatrist. She attended voluntarily, but following examination she was detained for forty days, with an extension likely. The father knew the mother was unwell and wanted her to recover, but he also acknowledged that he was unable to care for the children.
The CFA said the children were currently in separate placements. Child A was in a special emergency arrangement and the agency was making every effort to identify a more appropriate placement. A previous direction had already been made by another judge that an appropriate placement be found for him. Child B was in a placement in Cavan, though the agency was also actively looking for an alternative foster care placement and ideally a foster placement for both children.
The social worker said a placement had now been identified for Child A in a Fresh Start Unit. The judge expressed concern that an eight-year-old boy was in a unit rather than a family placement and said that finding an appropriate placement for him was very much on his mind.
The GAL supported the application and raised a number of issues. He supported a written access plan. The social worker said both children had had access with their father the previous week, but Child B became anxious during long car journeys. She proposed that access be reviewed every two weeks for the time being, and said sibling access also needed to be maintained and reviewed constantly.
The GAL asked about the child in care review date, the plan to meet the mother, the oversight arrangements for the special emergency placement, and the assessment of Child B’s developmental needs. The social worker said regular phone contact with the mother was ongoing. Oversight of the SEA placement involved a named organisation, an SEA coordinator and regular meetings. The GAL had attended one of those meetings and another was listed for the following week. The judge directed that the next meeting be brought forward so that the court could receive an update sooner.
In relation to Child B, the social worker said he had been brought to the GP a little over two weeks earlier and the GP had said she would complete a referral for full assessment. The judge said that was too long to wait without progress and directed that an update be provided within seven days.
The GAL also asked about medical cards, out-of-hours supports, block booking, former foster carers returning to the system and the possibility of a public campaign to recruit carers. The social worker said all five fostering services had been approached, but none had been able to provide a placement. She described the situation as desperate. Extended family options had also been explored in detail, but there was no known family in Ireland and the names provided by the mother could not be identified.
The GAL then made a section 47 application, seeking a written update on each of the recommendations in his report and directions that the matter come back before the judge who had previously dealt with related placement issues, with all parties informed and present, including the regional chief officer. The CFA had no objection, though it sought liberty to re-mention the case if difficulties arose. The judge noted that the CFA had been aware of the placement crisis for more than two weeks. She said she was satisfied that the statutory threshold for the interim care order was met and that the children’s welfare would be impaired if the order were not continued. She extended the ICO for a further twenty-eight days. She adopted the GAL’s recommendations as agreed and directed that the chief regional officer attend. She also accepted the GAL report on affidavit in support of the application.