In the District Court, the Child and Family Agency (CFA) sought the extension of an interim care order in respect of two children. The father, mother and the guardian ad litem (GAL) were all legally represented. There was no consent to the extension of the interim care order.
Evidence of the social worker
The social worker told the court that the health, development and welfare of the children would be avoidably impaired if the order was not extended. Both children had been in foster care since December of the previous year.
The social worker stated that there had been a change in the parents’ engagement since the last court date. Both parents had missed access visits. They would often text shortly before access was due to commence. On one occasion, the mother texted the social worker fifteen minutes before access. On another occasion, the mother left after ten minutes of access and on a separate occasion, the parents left after one hour.
The social worker confirmed that the parents had signed an access agreement requiring them to confirm attendance by text message by 8 am on the morning of each scheduled access visit. The parents had also disengaged from Circle of Security therapy sessions, having missed two sessions, and refused further support. The social worker had arranged a meeting the previous week to address these issues, but the parents did not attend.
The social worker gave further evidence that recent DNA tests had shown that the putative father was not the biological father of the boy. The mother did not know the identity of the biological father.
The social worker stated that both children were getting on well in their separate foster placements. The boy was attending school with excellent attendance and was enjoying his education. The girl had received her vaccinations and was up to date with her public health appointments. Access was otherwise proceeding well.
Evidence of the guardian ad litem
There were no questions from the parents’ legal representatives. The solicitor for the GAL made clear that the GAL supported the CFA’s application for the extension of the interim care order. The solicitor noted the parents’ non-attendance at the meeting the previous week.
Judge’s ruling
In handing down his decision, the judge stated that it was necessary and proportionate to extend the interim care order. He noted that there were no instructions from the parents opposing the application. The judge extended the interim care order for a period of 29 days. He further directed that the putative father be removed from the proceedings in respect of the boy.