An application for an interim care order was replaced with a supervision order for a period of three months due to the child’s age and his request that he stay at home. The mother consented to the making of the supervision order based on the concerns of the Child and Family Agency and her seeking the help of the CFA.
The solicitor for the mother submitted to the court that if the CFA had no intention of moving their Section 17 and Section 18 applications then both should be struck out. He stated that the CFA could apply again at any stage.
He said his client was acceding to a Section 19 (supervision) order being made.
The solicitor for the GAL said the GAL was cautiously hopeful that a supervision order would be sufficient and noted that the CFA’s application was for the supervision order and not the intended interim care order (ICO). He said the GAL thought that an adjournment of the Section 17 was the appropriate thing to do.
He asked that the GAL remain appointed until the matter was concluded.
The solicitor for the mother said it was inappropriate to maintain applications before the court. The solicitor for the CFA said that the case was very much on the edge and it needed to be tightly monitored and that the CFA wanted the right to move at short notice if that were required.
The judge granted a three-month supervision order and noted the GAL was hopeful that it would work. He noted that the social workers and professionals would attend the home and that the order was to benefit the child.
He said that there was some merit to the interim order being adjourned and adjourned it for three months.