An interim care orderwas extended for an infant less than a year old who was with foster carers under the interim care order. The father’s paternity had only been confirmed in recent weeks through a paternity test. The father was legally represented and his solicitor confirmed he was anxious to work with the CFA and the GAL and the professionals but that his overall aim was to be the primary carer for the child. The mother was not engaging with the proceedings.
The court was told that the father engaged well and was co-operating completely in relation to the required background checks that were necessary. The court heard the father was having access with the child now and wanted to continue to have at least two access visits per week. The GAL had observed access and was pleased with how it had gone.
His solicitor said that if the CFA put threshold at issue they would have a difficulty in reaching it. However, the father did consent to the extension, pending all of the assessments and checks being done.
The father’s solicitor indicated that separate private law proceedings were in train and he had received approval to bring those before this District Court.
The CFA solicitor informed the court that the Section 18 (full care order) dates should be vacated given that the father had been identified. She also said that the social workers had met with the father. The CFA had an additional application under Section 47 to dispense with parental consent to allow the child to travel with her foster carers. This was granted, but the court was told that the father would consent to the travel anyway, in the child’s best interests.
The solicitor for the father said the father was anxious to put the child’s interests first and had agreed to a phased transition to allow them both get used to routines but it was the father’s clear intention to assume primary care of the child. The court heard that a guardianship application had been brought and that the father had consented to background checks being carried out. The solicitor said he wanted a concrete plan for reunification for his client.
The court was told that there was no known address for the mother and that she did not engage with the proceedings. The judge urged the CFA to try and find an address for the mother and implored the father to keep working and to ask for help and to continue to engage with the professionals.
The ICO was extended.