The court was told by the social worker that A had disclosed that she had sex with a boy of the same age during the time she was missing and that she had switched off her mobile phone to disable the location function. The Child and Family Agency (CFA) lawyer said that it intended to apply for a special care placement as it was too difficult to keep the child in the community. The judge insisted the application be made urgently and listed the matter for three days later to check that the application for the special care unit had been completed.
The lawyer for the CFA informed the judge that this case was being re-entered because of a Section 47 direction made previously. The direction had specified that the matter be re-entered in the event of A being missing in care for more than 24 hours. The social worker stated that A was now back in her residential placement but she had attempted to abscond twice since her return. She had been missing from her care placement for four nights before being located with a peer at a hostel in a neighbouring county. Gardaí had assisted in the search for her.
The social worker said that she had not yet met with the girl as she had been missing at the time of the scheduled meeting but she hoped to meet with her the following week. Child A had engaged in sexual activity with a boy of the same age on one of the nights she was missing in care. The Gardaí were looking into this issue and the boy was known to them.
The social worker said that A had had a good holiday at Christmas but that a minor school incident had caused a dip in her mood. She described meeting with A’s therapeutic team to check what resources should be put in place for her. She concluded that because it was so difficult to keep A in the community, she intended to make an application for a place in a special care unit.
The judge was extremely concerned with the details she had heard. She stated that the application for a special care place should be made that day. This case was about a teenage girl, who was uncontactable when she absconded and who had sex when she was missing. The CFA lawyer, noting that the application form for a special care placement was 22 pages in length, asked the social worker what she needed in order to make the application. The social worker replied that she needed the assistance of the social work team leader.
The CFA lawyer asked the social worker what information A had disclosed when she returned after the four nights away. The social worker said that A was close to one worker and had made the disclosure about her sexual activity to her. She described the lengths that A went to during her time away to prevent social workers from contacting her. A’s mobile phone had been turned off to disable her location. She was still able to access her social media accounts on other devices.
The social worker said she had serious concerns about one person whom A consorted with when they both absconded together. She described A as a lovely child, who was struggling and angry and had disengaged from all services.
The lawyer for the guardian ad litem requested that the matter be mentioned again in court in a few days to give social workers a chance to complete the special care application as the matter was very urgent.
The judge said that she appreciated the efforts made by A’s social worker but that A was at serious risk of harm after being missing in care four times in four days. She decided to list the matter before the court again after three days to check that the application for the special care placement had been completed. She gave the social worker liberty to re-enter the matter in the intervening period if necessary.
When the case came back before the court the judge conducted an urgent review after the child had absconded again since the case had last appeared in court.
The child had gone missing at approximately 11:55am on a Monday and had returned at 7pm the following day.
The lawyer for the CFA told the court that a special care application was under consideration. The area manager planned a meeting with a garda superintendent, a child protection and welfare officer and CFA staff. The judge responded that the child had absconded regularly since the previous August and that a special care application had been mentioned for several weeks.
The lawyer for the guardian ad litem told the court that the case would need to be re-entered next week if the child absconded again. The judge stated she had already made a direction on the issue and was unsure if the current placement was best for the child. She said someone from the residential and social work teams should attend court the following week to explain what had happened and whether gardaí had been contacted.
The judge directed that relevant staff from the residential and social work teams attend the next hearing. They were required by the judge to detail all missing-in-care episodes for the child, including what the child did, where she went, who was with her, whether medical assessments were required after each episode, and whether the CFA had a policy on absconding from care. If a policy existed, it should be produced in court.
The judge listed the case for the following week with liberty to apply in the interim.