A district court judge in a provincial city granted a six-month interim care order for two sisters, aged 13 and seven years, with a review in three months. The father was in custody and the mother was deceased.
The maternal grandmother attended the proceedings. The father of the children was brought to court by officers of the Irish Prison Service (IPS). The judge asked the father, who was not represented, if he understood the proceedings and the nature of the order sought by the Child and Family Agency (CFA). He stated that he did and wished to proceed with the hearing. The judge acknowledged the grandmother’s presence and her support for the children’s father.
The social worker told the court that the family had lived in the northern part of the county until their mother died. The father and the two children moved to another county, where the father began a new relationship. Criminal allegations of a serious assault by the father had emerged at that time. The family had returned to his home county while he was on bail for those allegations. The father could not find suitable accommodation, so the children had been placed with family members. This had resulted in five different family placements and three different school placements during that time, according to the social worker.
When the family returned to the home county, the oldest girl could not be placed in a secondary school as no schools could take her and she had to revert to sixth class in primary school. The social worker said this child experienced mental health difficulties and she was self-harming. CAMHS had assessed her and concluded the behaviour was a response to stress and grief, as the child had not had time to grieve her mother’s death.
The social worker stated that the voluntary care arrangement had ended the previous week. The children had gone to their grandmother’s accommodation, which was run by Focus Ireland. The social worker stated that this was unsuitable accommodation for young children.
The social worker told the court that the youngest child had settled well in the current foster placement. She enjoyed playing outside and with the dogs. The older child wanted to live with her maternal aunt, but previous allegations against the aunt by the oldest child meant this placement was not considered for child protection reasons.
A new school had been identified for the following week. The children were to be provided with school lunches and uniforms. The social worker stated that the current foster carers were approved and could provide medium to long-term care. The children required stability. Therapy to process grief had been initiated in a previous school, and the CFA planned to arrange this again for the children.
Access had taken place twice with the father since he had been taken into custody. The older child had spoken to him, however, the youngest child believed her father was sick and in hospital. Further access was being arranged.
The CFA lawyer asked the social worker whether the grandmother accepted her accommodation was unsuitable. The social worker confirmed this and said the grandmother had been involved and supportive of the CFA.
The judge asked the father if he was on remand. The father said he was on remand and that his trial was due to be heard shortly. The father’s main concern was maintaining access. The judge said staff shortages at the CFA had previously prevented prison visits. The grandmother said she had nothing further to add but remained supportive of the CFA.
The judge said the grief centre should be engaged as it was in the children’s best interests to address this issue. She said that the father and grandmother consented to the order sought by the CFA. The judge said the threshold had been met and that the children’s health, development, and welfare would likely be unavoidably impaired without it. She appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) to the children and granted the interim care order for a period of six months.