The District Court extended an interim care order (ICO) for a teenage boy missing from his placement, amid serious concerns that his life could be at risk. The court heard that while the boy had been in phone contact with his social worker and grandfather, he was refusing to return to his current unregulated placement.
The solicitor for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) said the boy had been in care since February 2025 and was currently placed in a special emergency arrangement (SEA). He had contacted his social worker that morning and said he was “safe and well” but would not return to the placement.
An aunt had recently come forward offering to care for him, but an assessment would be required before her suitability could be determined. The solicitor said the teenager was being treated as a “highest priority” missing child, and that special care remained an option.
The father was present in court and was consenting to the extension. His barrister said he was “extremely concerned” and believed his son was involved with a criminal gang. She said he had received information suggesting criminal activity was planned for the following day and that “something serious” could happen to the boy.
The father was frustrated with what he felt was an “inadequate response” from An Garda Síochána. His primary concern was that once located, his son should not return to his current placement or to his grandfather’s care. The father believed the boy needed secure care or an alternative placement with clear boundaries in place, as at the moment, he was “calling all the shots.”
The grandfather’s solicitor said his client was also deeply concerned. He was aware of the boy’s involvement in criminality before he absconded from his placement and while in his own care. He had spoken to him that morning and said he sounded “groggy and tired.” He did not want him returned to his current placement, but accepted he might struggle to manage him alone. The solicitor said his client wanted it known to the court that the boy had never properly dealt with the grief of losing his mother two years earlier and had been very upset around anniversaries, one of which was coming up.
The solicitor for the guardian ad litem (GAL) said the GAL was supporting the extension, but noted the serious concerns about the teenager’s placement. The solicitor said that despite the CFA’s “best efforts,” the placement had failed to meet the teenager’s needs. Staff had not realised he was missing for several hours, despite the requirement to check on him every hour.
The GAL had previously brought an application under section 47 of the Child Care Act 1991, seeking a direction that the CFA provide a registered placement suitable to meet the boy’s needs. An assessment had been carried out, but no appropriate placement had been identified. As a result, he remained in an unregulated SEA.
The GAL solicitor said section 60 was relevant, as it made it clear it was an offence to operate a children’s residential centre unless registered. He noted the “very tricky legal position” that “a person with a criminal conviction could be running these centres.” He said the “green light” was being given to children being placed in such centres, which was “hugely concerning.” The option was there to refer the matter to the relevant authorities, which also raised the question as to the possibility of the CFA’s criminal liability in facilitating the situation.
In relation to the response of An Garda Síochána, the GAL solicitor said a request had been made to “ping” the teenager’s phone, but this had been refused twice. “We received unsettling information that the case did not meet the threshold of serious risk to life,” he said. “I’m not sure what the Garda threshold is, but it must be incredibly high.”
He emphasised that the situation was particularly sensitive as the second anniversary of the boy’s mother’s death fell that Friday.
The social worker, who had worked with the boy for two years and had known the family since 2021, described the situation as “very serious.” Prior to entering the SEA he had routinely gone missing while living with his grandfather. There had been 40 previous referrals to the social work department over the years, with historic concerns including domestic violence, abuse and neglect. The boy had previously indicated he had no relationship with his father.
The social worker said the boy had experienced a short period of relative stability after entering care, but had absconded previously and was later caught joyriding contra-flow on a motorway in a stolen car. He had been charged in relation to that incident.
She described his main motivation as wanting to return to his grandfather. Although overnight visits had taken place over Christmas, concerns had emerged afterwards that he was at risk of retribution linked to criminal activity. The social worker said she believed he was being influenced by older peers and adults in the background.
“He is a bright, intelligent and insightful young man,” she said, “but the reality from my conversations with him is that he has lost hope of returning to his granddad’s.”
In relation to the most recent absconsion, the social worker said he had been last seen by staff at midnight on the day in question. Hourly checks were supposed to take place, but at 4.35 am the following morning An Garda Síochána attended the placement and discovered he was not present.
The CFA had been liaising with two separate Garda stations in relation to the boy. The social worker said co-ordination between the two had been challenging. A request to ping his phone had been refused twice. “They are not satisfied that he meets the criteria that there is a risk to his life,” she said.
When asked directly by the judge whether in her clear experience she believed his life was at risk, she replied: “Yes. He is very, very vulnerable.”
The social worker confirmed that a special care application had been submitted but that, at present, the only available placement remained the SEA. She accepted that if returned there, he was likely to abscond again.
The GAL told the court she believed the teenager was being groomed and influenced by adults involved in criminal activity. She said he had expressed clear unhappiness with the placement and had told her he would not return. She was aware that since being placed in the SEA, he had experienced an “emotional crisis.” He had little to no relationship with staff and felt isolated there. He wanted no contact with his father, as he had not been in his life previously. He was primarily worried about his grandfather. He had previously said he would be open to support in relation to the loss of his mother, but has not taken up any supports offered.
When the GAL spoke to him after he went missing, the boy said he was with friends and had eaten but refused to disclose his location. During a further call that morning, she said he sounded worse and “almost like a different person.”
“He has so much potential, but he needs stability,” she said.
When asked for her view on the suitability of the SEA, the GAL said it was clear the teenager was not being provided with the support and stability he required.
The judge said the immediate priority was locating the boy. “When a child is missing, there is a risk to life,” he said. “Every effort must be made, and it must be done as soon as possible.”
He described it as an “appalling situation” that the only placement available was an unregulated SEA and that if found, the reality was that this is where he would return to. He said an argument could be made that by placing him in an unregulated placement, his situation had been made worse.
“In my view, it is a national scandal,” he said, stressing that he was not criticising the social work team, whom he described as “the hardest working professionals.”
The judge extended the ICO for a week and adjourned the section 47 application to the same date. At the request of the GAL, he further directed that the relevant inspector of An Garda Síochána attend the next date, if the teenager had not been located by that stage, to explain the decision not to authorise a phone ping and the assessment of risk.
When the case came back to court the interim care order was extended for a further week. The child was still missing in care, having absconded from his SEA placement and where an application for secure care was pending. The court was deeply concerned about the lack of suitable placement.
The solicitor for the guardian ad litem (GAL) reminded the court that this case involved a vulnerable young person who had been missing from care for several weeks. He said that the young person had absconded from his SEA placement six weeks earlier and was refusing to return to it, that the social work department’s application for secure care had been approved internally in Tusla and it had been expected that a secure care application would be made on the previous Monday. However, no application had been made then.
Without secure care the only placement available was the SEA which the young person was refusing to return to. Another placement had been identified but following a collective risk assessment it was agreed this placement would not meet the needs of this young person. The young person had said they would like to live with their grandad.
The guardian’ssolicitor urged that new efforts should be made to engage with everyone and to find a solution. He said they would be in agreement with extending the interim care order, but only for a short amount of time so that the court could keep monitoring the issues in this case.
He reminded the court that at a previous hearing it was agreed that the court had made an order under Section 47 that a suitable placement should be found for this young person and that if the young person ended up on the list of children in secure care without a bed than the direction should be looked at again and Tusla questioned about the suitability of the placement.
The barrister for the father said the father was worried about the child’s safety and the fact that he was evading Tusla. He said that the father felt the young person should be allowed live with his grandfather again under a well-structured strict arrangement. He was also very concerned about the lack of school engagement but understood this could only happen when the young person was back in a stable placement.
The barrister for the grandfather urged the social workers to explore all options, including allowing the young person to stay with his grandfather. He said the grandfather was happy to consent for a short time, but wanted court to keep monitoring the situation.
The solicitor for the social worker said that he had no problem with a short extension. He said he was unable to offer an explanation as to why a secure care application had not been made already, but that one would be made the coming Monday. He said that the placement with the grandfather had been tried over Christmas but that it ended in difficult circumstances and would not be a suitable placement either. He acknowledged the upset and frustration of everyone and agreed to a short extension while the special care application was made.
The judge said he was very frustrated with this case, as it showed again the unsuitability of Special Emergency Arrangements. He also expressed concern that he had been told an application for secure would be made but it had not been. He acknowledged that the social workers were working hard but this was a concerning case and should be a concern at a corporate level and that someone needed to explain why an application that he was told would happen, did not happen.
The judge said that he felt “we are playing Russian roulette with children’s lives in the care system”, and that depending on what happened in the coming days the section 47 would need to be acted on and senior management in the agency would need to come into court and swear that they stood over the placement in an SEA.
The interim care order was extended for a week.
When the case came back for a further extension, the interim care order was extended the teenager who had been placed in an unregistered special emergency placement. A collective risk assessment had taken place.
There continued to be huge concerns for the boy who was engaged in extremely risky behaviour, including a criminal gang and car chases. The professionals believed he was at significant risk. Since he had been in the SEA his behaviour had improved but the court was told there were times when he took off. The court heard that he was back attending school but that it was not consistent. The boy had lost his mother in tragic circumstances some two years previously but did have some access with his grandfather.
Another placement had been found and the professionals were largely hopeful he would get a place. A transitional plan was being put in place. The boy had a good relationship with the social worker and with his grandfather.
The boy’s father was present in court and was legally represented. He consented to the extension of the ICO but he had concerns regarding the SEA. He also raised his own lack of access with the boy. He wanted to have face to face contact with him in order to support him and the court heard the boy had no access with his father at the present time.
The grandfather was also present and he consented to the extension. He had concerns regarding the child’s lack of school attendance, his interactions with his peers and his risk-taking behaviours. He had had access with the boy in recent weeks and he had hoped that he could also have overnight stays.
The allocated social worker was called to give evidence and said engagement with the boy had improved and he was hopeful of him getting a place in an alternative facility. He gave evidence that he had met with the school and the teenager was on a reduced timetable. He told the court that if the alternative place did not work out he would remain in the current placement and the search would continue.
The GAL had prepared a report and her key recommendations were around the placement issue. She said the teenager needed a consistent routine.
The ICO was extended and the case was due to listed again before the court in two weeks’ time.
When the case came back again the court was informed that a special care order had been made since the last court date and therefore there would be no application to extend the ICO.
The court heard that the barrister representing the grandfather in the District Court proceedings would not be representing him in the High Court and said that that was regrettable. The grandfather’s barrister wanted the court to note the effort and care provided by the grandfather and his positive influence on his grandson.
The court was told that the GAL had met the boy in special care and he was attending school on a one-to-one basis.
The judge commented: “Where would the court and the country be without grandparents?” The judge said the grandfather was to be commended and noted that he wanted the child returned to his care. He concluded the matter in the District Court and wished the child well.