An interim care order was granted following a hearing in circumstances where both parents were present, but the father’s legal representation was absent. The court heard evidence from the social worker and submissions from the parties, ultimately granting the application on a consent basis, albeit in difficult procedural circumstances.
At the outset, the matter was delayed due to the absence of the father’s legal representatives. The father had been produced as he was currently serving a sentence. The court expressed concern about proceeding in those circumstances, stating that it was “not acceptable” that the father’s legal team was not present. The matter was let stand on two occasions to allow time for contact with the father’s solicitor’s practice, and the barrister they had instructed on his behalf. It was eventually confirmed that she [the barrister] was unavailable and that his solicitors could neither attend nor instruct anyone.
The court was profoundly unhappy with the situation, noting that the matter had been set down many months previously, and made a remark directly to the CLP reporter to include in this report that there was a consistent problem arising before the court of certain legal representatives being absent, not meeting their clients in advance or at all to provide advice, and generally acting in an unprofessional manner.
The mother’s legal representative indicated that the father had not had the benefit of legal advice of any kind in relation to the matter and that it would be inappropriate to speak on his behalf. The father himself stated, when asked by the court, that he “doesn’t know what’s going on.”
The judge noted the difficulty of the situation, stating that while the court’s preference would be to proceed, he did not wish “to take anyone short”. While making clear he was in no respect representing him, the solicitor for the mother had an informal conversation with the father and indicated to the court that the father wished to propose his mother as potential foster placement and that the father would consent to the order.
The mother, through her representative, indicated that she was consenting to the application on a strictly without prejudice basis. It was submitted that she had engaged significantly with services, including completing a detox programme, and had maintained positive engagement with access. It was further outlined that she had recently been the victim of a violent aggressive assault while in hostel accommodation, which had impacted her ability to attend certain appointments.
Evidence from the social worker confirmed that the child had come into care some months previously due to concerns arising from parental substance misuse. A safety plan had been explored prior to birth but could not be secured, leading to the initial emergency care order. Since then, voluntary care arrangements had been in place.
The social worker confirmed that the mother had engaged well with access, describing interactions as “very good” and appropriate. However, there had been delays in completing planned hair follicle testing, which the mother was now willing to undertake. Positive engagement with detox services was also confirmed.
In relation to placement, the child was currently in foster care and was described as doing well, with foster carers engaging positively. The possibility of a relative placement with the paternal grandmother had been explored but concerns had been raised following Garda vetting disclosures. The social worker indicated that while assessment could proceed, it was considered unlikely to be successful.
The guardian ad litem (GAL) supported the application.
In delivering his decision, the judge noted that the child had initially come into care under an emergency order and had remained under voluntary arrangements since that time. He recorded that the father, despite the absence of his legal representatives, had indicated agreement to the making of the order, and that the mother was consenting on a without prejudice basis.
The judge stated: “I commend the parents for putting the child’s interest first” and further commended the mother for engaging positively with services. He acknowledged the distressing circumstances surrounding the recent assault and noted the mother’s willingness to continue engaging with supports, including further testing and potential residential options. He was satisfied that the threshold for an interim care order was met and granted the application, with a view to progressing towards possible family reunification.