A Dubin District Court judge extended an interim care order for an infant who was in the care of the State under an interim care order but residing with his mother and brother in a “supported living arrangement” in a “mother and children residence”. It was deemed to be a better option than a Special Emergency Arrangement (SEA), until the CFA sourced a foster care placement.
There were concerns over the mother’s ability to protect the children, due to domestic violence involving the infant’s father. The mother had since secured a safety order against him. The CFA’s rationale for the continuing concerns was that, were the mother to return to her own apartment, the risk of domestic violence would resume.
The barrister for the mother stated that she was capable of caring for her children. She needed supports and those supports were now in place. The barrister put it to the social worker that the CFA’s application did not reflect the reality of the mother’s situation and that it was “not necessary or proportionate. It is a hypothetical order; you are asking the court to make an order and for the child to remain with his mother.”
The barrister pointed out: “You say it is short term [referring to the supported living arrangement], but this has been before the court for a year.”
The barrister for the father asked the social worker why the CFA had not been able to find a long-term placement for the child. The social worker explained that it is “challenging nationally and regionally” to match with suitable placements. Referring to the safety order now in place, the barrister put it to the social worker that “the law has done its job, it is for the courts to deal with if that is breached.”
In conclusion, the judge found that the threshold continued to exist to warrant extending the interim care order. He said it was “better than far too common SEAs.” He stressed that the supported living arrangement was “not a placement”, but rather the “least worst option”.