The District Court extended an interim care order in respect of two children. A date was set for a care order hearing however those dates were later vacated.
The father attended court but was not legally represented. The mother was not in court. The father told the court that he had dismissed his solicitor because she had repeatedly attended court with medical reports indicating that he had mental health difficulties. He said that he would like a copy of the medical reports that proved he had mental health issues.
He told the court that he had a court advocate but the advocate did not attend. The father stated that he wished to have court advocacy support and was surprised that his advocate had not appeared after what he described as a two-year wait to secure the court advocate.
The judge told the father that the advocate was well known to the court as both an advocate and guardian ad litem (GAL) and said that if was not present there would likely be a valid reason.
The father also raised concerns regarding a recent drug-test appointment. He stated that he had attended the clinic specified for the test at the correct time and date, but was informed that there was no record of his appointment and that the clinic had subsequently closed for the day. He stated that he had then attended an alternative clinic where the drug test was completed. The father stated that he had lodged the test at a Garda station to protect himself, and he had informed the social worker of this.
The father then asked why no effort had been made by the social work department to collect the drug test and why he had been given an appointment date for which there was no appointment. He said that when he contacted the social worker he felt that her primary concern had been that he should not have been contacting the children’s foster carers.
The father told the court that he was seeking access with his children and requested a date for access. He stated that he wished to know the process and timeframe involved in making an application to see his children. He also said that he would like full custody of his children.
Father: “I asked for the trajectory for the kids to come back to live with me.”
Judge: “What is before the court today is the extension of the ICO. I cannot deal with everything else today.”
The judge said that the father should have legal representation as a solicitor would be able to issue an access application on his behalf.
The solicitor for the CFA said that the father had discussed some of his concerns with her prior to the hearing. She said that, if the father provided a means of contact, she could speak further with him regarding the issues he raised. The father told the court that he did not own a mobile phone as he did not believe in them.
The CFA’ solicitor also said that urinalysis was only one component of the father’s overall assessment process and that mental health considerations also formed part of his assessment. The CFA also required an updated parenting capacity assessment as well as a secondary assessment component involving a clinical psychologist, as a number of issues remained to be addressed. The children were scheduled to start play therapy.