An interim care order was extended in a rural District Court for three children of primary school and playschool ages. The parents were present in court and neither consented nor objected to the ICO extension.
The social worker gave evidence that the grounds and threshold continued to be met.
The court was told that the parents were committed to fully engaging with the social work department. Access was taking place once a week at the social work department and was fully supervised. Play therapy had been advised for all three children.
Two of the children were placed together and the court heard that child A had exhibited some self-harming behaviour. Children A and B had been placed together, however there were reports of ongoing conflict between them and another placement would be explored. The youngest child, C, attended a creche while the older two attended school.
Both the school and creche had reported an improvement in the children’s behaviour since being received into care, demonstrated through less aggressive play and an improvement in their appearances.
There were plans for a parenting capacity assessment (PCA) to take place and the mother’s barrister urged that the terms of reference be explored. The judge said the “right person” needed to be found to carry out the PCA. She said that there was potential for change but that a huge amount of work needed to be done.
An update was provided on a recent access, which was reported as positive and appropriate. It had been fully supervised. An access review was to take place within two weeks.
The GAL’s solicitor said the children had suffered terribly and that child C was under ferocious pressure as it had been him who had made a number of disclosures. The other siblings were blaming him. In addition, he said child A was exhibiting self-harming behaviour.
He said that Garda interviews were to take place and a strategy meeting had been scheduled. The solicitor for the GAL asked that the GAL be invited to any such strategy meetings.
The social worker spoke about a scar on child B’s forehead, which had only recently been noticed, following a haircut. It appeared that the child had had 14 staples in the left side of his head. There were inconsistent reports as to what had caused the injury. The medical records were to be taken up for all the children, including hospital admissions and GP records.
The judge said that were a lot of serious issues in the case.
The GAL said that it was a most concerning case and that there were a lot of layers to it. There was an element of physical discipline, carried out in a controlled manner. He said there was not only discipline but that there was a belief system and a behavioural change was needed. He said the parents had indicated that they were willing to work on it but the GAL said that it would be a lengthy process and required specialised professionals. He said specific therapies may be required. There were worries about disclosures and he said that any unnecessary delays would cause uncertainty. The GAL had met with the foster carers and with the school and creche. He said a plan needed to be set out.
The judge commented that child A’s presentation was concerning. A further assessment and a CAHMS referral were required. The case was due back before the court in a month’s time for further review. The court directed that access would remain at the discretion of the CFA.