A judge in a rural town granted a six-month supervision order for three very young children, who lived with their mother and her partner. Previous care orders granted to the Child and Family Agency (CFA) for the children had been vacated and the children returned to the care of the mother.
Recent serious concerns regarding neglect and danger to the children resulted in the matter being brought back to court. The fact that the mother’s partner was very aggressive towards the social workers and denied them access to the children’s home prompted the judge to make directions that the partner was to vacate the property while the first assessment of the children’s care was being carried out. The judge directed that the partner was to be present in the home for the second assessment to allow social workers to make a proper assessment of the everyday care of the children.
The children’s mother was present in court and did not have legal representation. The mother’s partner was not present. The children’s father was present in court and was not legally represented. The guardian ad litem (GAL) was not present through illness but was represented by her solicitor.
The social worker told the court that there were ongoing concerns about neglect of the children. There were very serious concerns about the aggression shown by the mother’s partner, who was not the children’s biological father. The social worker described the efforts made by the CFA to gain access to the home to assess the care of the children. She said the partner’s verbal aggression towards the social workers made it impossible for the social workers to gain access to the home.
The lawyer for the CFA asked the social worker to outline the current safety plan in place for the children. The social worker stated that a child protection conference had taken place eight months previously. Following this, the CFA funded daily crèche attendance for the children. Respite care was also organised for the children’s safety. The respite worker had expressed serious concerns about the physical presentation of the children during the past year. There were additional worries about the way the children’s mother tended to normalise and minimise the aggression of her partner.
The judge asked the CFA lawyer if the partner was already known to social services and the lawyer replied that there had previously been concerns about his domestic violence and drug use. The partner had children who were now living with their mother. After the child protection conference, the mother was requested to bring the cleanliness of the home up to an acceptable standard. The mother’s partner was directed to be Garda vetted but he had refused to do so. The CFA lawyer asked if the mother had any family support network and the social worker replied that the network people had removed themselves from her life.
The social worker said one child had made a concerning disclosure that the mother’s partner had put his finger in the child’s bum. The mother allowed for a medical examination of the child but refused to allow the child to be interviewed by a Garda specialist. She stated that the child had already been through enough and that she wanted to protect him.
The social worker said that the mother swayed between saying she would leave her partner and then changing her mind. The CFA lawyer asked if the mother was the only problem in this case. The social worker replied that there was also concern for the mother’s own health and well-being, especially her mental health and her capacity to keep the children safe. She said it was important for the CFA to be able to assess the safety of the partner as he was an integral part of the children’s everyday life. They viewed him as a parental figure.
The children’s mother told the judge that she was representing herself. She said she had no questions but wanted to give her own evidence. She told the court that the CFA always had problems with whoever she had as a partner. The judge asked the mother if she had read the report about her children where it stated she was late picking them up from crèche and that the children were sometimes not dressed appropriately. The mother said that the children were being bullied there and that she was sometimes late picking them up as she had hospital appointments. The judge asked about a continual nasal infection one child had and the mother explained that the child had kept picking at a sore spot.
The judge stated that the CFA needed to get the opportunity to see and assess the care of the children in their home. She asked the mother why her partner had not just gone elsewhere while the assessment was taking place.
Judge: “I do not understand why you don’t ask your partner to leave when the social workers want to do the assessment.”
Mother: “I never stopped the assessment.”
The judge explained that the situation was quite simple. Either the assessment could take place or the court would need to take another option regarding the care of the children. The CFA lawyer suggested that the mother think about getting some legal advice to explain the care options open to her and the court but the mother was very definite in her reply that she would not seek legal advice.
The children’s father was present in court and the judge asked if he had any questions. He asked a question about a possible conflict of interest as the solicitor had the same name as a solicitor previously involved and the judge explained that, while the surname was the same, they were two different, unconnected law firms. The father also asked another question which did not have any connection with the evidence of the case. The father said that he did not know the mother’s current partner.
The judge said that she had decided to grant a supervision order for a period of six months, during which time she expected the CFA social workers to visit the home a number of times and make an assessment of the care being received by the children. She directed that the mother’s partner should leave the home for the duration of the assessment.
The CFA lawyer pointed out that if the partner was not present in the house, it would prevent the social workers from getting a full picture of the care in the home. The judge then directed that the partner was to leave the home for the duration of the first assessment but was to be present in the home during the second assessment. The judge warned that the partner was not to be upstairs or in any other location in the home while the first assessment was being carried out. She stated that the full assessment could successfully take place if everybody cooperated with it.
The judge reappointed the same GAL who had dealt with the family previously. The mother objected and requested that a different GAL be appointed but this was refused. The judge listed the matter for a date two months later in order to assess how measures had progressed.