In a rural district court, the Child and Family Agency (CFA) applied for the extension of an interim care order in respect of a young teenager. The application was made on consent of the child’s parents.
Evidence of the social worker
The social worker told the court that the child was currently in a special emergency arrangement in the midlands. There were significant difficulties with the child’s level of absconding, as well as concerns regarding his hygiene, self-care, sleeping patterns and diet.
The social worker stated there had been several incidents of absconding, violent behaviour and starting fires. The child had recently absconded from the special emergency arrangement and had been missing overnight for approximately five hours. There had been a further episode the previous day, with the child returning at about half past twelve at night. The social worker believed the child had planned a trip to Dublin but later presented himself at a Garda station. A plan of management was in place for the child’s absconding which involved attempts to contact the child directly, notify his parents and An Garda Síochána.
In relation to education, the social worker stated that the child was attending counselling and that home tuition was to commence at the end of the month. It was being explored whether the child could receive one-to-one tuition.
Regarding a neuropsychological assessment, the social worker explained that this assessment would take place once the child’s routines were established and he was receiving appropriate intervention. The psychologist was ready to proceed but required the support system to be in place first. The social worker stated that best practice required stable routines and a support system before such an assessment could proceed.
The social worker noted that the child wished to return home but was aware that his behaviour had led to him being taken into care. The child’s parents were supportive of him remaining in care.
Under cross-examination by the solicitor for the guardian ad litem (GAL), the social worker confirmed that a meeting had been arranged for the following week with a prospective counsellor, who had agreed to take on the child and which would involve weekly sessions. Adventure therapy was expected to resume shortly for a period of one month. When asked by the solicitor for the GAL, the social worker confirmed that he would convey clear expectations, guidance and structure to the child at the next meeting.
Evidence of the guardian ad litem
The GAL told the court that he had met the child the previous day. The child had refused to come out of his room at the special emergency accommodation and told the GAL to “f*ck off”. The GAL could hear the child in the room and was informed that he had been up all night on his phone and did not want to get out of bed.
The GAL expressed concern about the child’s pattern of unrestricted access to his phone, describing it as a “serious problem”. He stated that counselling and other therapies needed to proceed regardless of when a more stable placement became available. The GAL accepted that the child was not in a long-term placement and required a neuropsychological assessment, which in turn required fixed routines and accommodation.
Under cross-examination by the solicitor for the parents, the GAL agreed that the child’s unrestricted access to the internet should be limited, but stated that there were practical difficulties in achieving this. He also agreed that planned activities would be optimal but said there was little scope for negotiation when the child was simply saying “f*ck off”.
When asked by the judge what else could be done, the GAL described the situation as very disappointing. He stated that securing a residential placement would make it easier to put the right supports in place for the child. The GAL asked whether it was fair to keep a child in care if the CFA could not provide the necessary care.
Judge’s ruling and comments
Having heard the evidence, the judge stated that he had received an updated letter from the National Placement Team. He recalled being told on a previous occasion that the child was on a priority list with forty other children, and that there was only one suitable place in the country, with several children approaching eighteen years of age. The judge said that, despite further time having passed, the child’s accommodation situation had not advanced.
The judge pleaded with the CFA to find a suitable placement for the child. He described the situation as feeling like “groundhog day” and stated that the current arrangement was no longer suitable, with greater potential for harm to the child and others, including the risk of criminal conduct. He remarked, “We are standing idly by,” and that his “hands are tied behind my back”.
The judge stated that he was extremely frustrated with the situation, describing it as a very urgent and dangerous one. He feared the child would go missing and that something terrible would happen. He stated that the CFA was entrusted with the child’s care and that everyone could anticipate that an incident was likely. The judge stated that the CFA had no concrete solutions and would have to make a judgment call. He acknowledged the shortage of special care beds and that the High Court had expressed similar frustrations.
The judge noted the consent to the extension of the interim care order and confirmed that the threshold had been met in the case. He asked that the possibility of sourcing a bespoke local unit be canvassed again at senior management level within the CFA and indicated that he wished to be addressed on this at the next hearing.
Further extension of interim care order
When the case returned before the District Court, the solicitor for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) informed the court that the child had gone missing again while in care. He had been missing following his attendance at court for a criminal prosecution.
Evidence of the social worker
The social worker told the court that the child had made contact since going missing and said he would keep in touch and return in a few days. When asked whether there was any indication of the child’s current location, the social worker stated that he had some information. He had attempted to attend the location where he believed the child was located but was advised by members of An Garda Síochána not to do so, as it was not safe due to significant criminal activity in the area.
The social worker confirmed that CFA staff had been looking after the child after his court appearance. He had a one-to-one session with a staff member before being handed over to special emergency arrangement staff at the train station. The child walked away from staff at the handover. Soon thereafter, the missing persons protocol was engaged. The child made contact the next day. The social work team leader asked him to go to the Gardaí or share his location so that he could be collected.
When asked whether it was possible to track the child’s phone, the social worker said he was not sure, but that the CFA were making every effort to locate him. There was
contact between the child and his mother, and the parents were working with the CFA. The child recently refused to meet family members and did not want to see them. The last access visit, the previous month, had gone reasonably well, although the child had used poor language and had been uncooperative at times.
Regarding the structure of the child’s day, the social worker stated that care staff were attempting to establish a routine, including turning off the Wi-Fi and encouraging him to get out of bed and follow a dietary routine. The child had been looking for food at two or three o’clock in the morning, and matters were not progressing well. A fresh approach would be required, the social worker stated.
The social worker confirmed that the absent management plan needed to be updated, but this could not be done immediately. He accepted that the safety plan would need to be revised.
The social worker told the court that the child had previously been willing to attend school locally in the midlands, but had more recently stated that he was not willing to do so. An education and welfare officer was working on the issue with the CFA. The child indicated that he would not return that day but would do so in a few days’ time. The social work team leader stated that it was likely the child would return at the end of the weekend. According to the conversation she had with the child, the child said that he was being fed and was safe.
Under cross-examination by the solicitor for the child’s mother, the social worker accepted that the child appeared to be dictating when he would return. He also accepted that a similar incident had occurred the previous year when the child took a train to Cork and was later picked up at a rural train station. The social worker confirmed that the child had a history of absconding and that this was not the first occasion. The social worker stated that he was present when the child went missing recently. The child had been left in the care of accommodation staff at the train station when he went missing. Staff had attempted to follow him but lost track of him.
Submissions and evidence of the guardian ad litem
Under cross-examination by the solicitor for the GAL, the social worker confirmed that he did not have an exact location for the child. The GAL solicitor noted the contact between the
child, his mother, and the team leader, and asked whether the child had shared his location. The social worker stated that he had done so at one point.
It was put to the social worker that the CFA had the power to issue a warrant to enter a location where the child was present. The solicitor for the CFA intervened, stating that this was a matter more properly for An Garda Síochána and the CFA to consider. The GAL solicitor asked whether this would be appropriate, and the social worker agreed that it would.
The solicitor for the GAL submitted that section 36 of the Child Care Act 1991 places mandatory obligations on the CFA to provide proper accommodation. In this case, the special emergency arrangement did not constitute a proper form of accommodation. The solicitor cited case law from a Supreme Court decision in support of this proposition.
The solicitor for the CFA informed the court that there had been agreement at senior management level within the CFA to provide additional security at the special emergency arrangement to prevent further absconding.
Judge’s ruling and comments
The judge stated that he had heard the submissions in relation to section 36 of the Childcare Act 1991 and that he was effectively repeating himself in relation to this case. He noted that the GAL might need to consider taking certain proceedings on behalf of the child, as he was unsure how much he could do to assist at this stage.
The judge observed that when the child had been at home he had been wreaking havoc and the parents had been unable to care for him. He was now required to adjudicate on the extension of the interim care order in circumstances where the child was missing while in state care. He described this as having “a certain irony” and expressed extreme concern for the child.
The judge stated that he was somewhat reassured to hear that additional protocols and security would be put in place if the child returned. However, he noted that the court appeared to be returning to where it had been previously, with alarm bells ringing. He agreed that the CFA’s obligations under section 36 were not being complied with and that a lack of resources was not an excuse. As a district court judge, he was unsure what more he could do, but he made the order for a short period of six days to see whether the child would return of his own accord.
The judge asked: “Did we do enough to prevent this happening?” He confirmed that the threshold for the extension had been met and extended the interim care order for six days.