A judge in a regional town granted a Section 47 application brought by the Child and Family Agency for two children to receive their holy communion this year together with their school peers. The mother, who was in custody, wanted their holy communion to be deferred for a year.
Evidence of the Social Worker
The social worker told the court that the children were due to receive their holy communion in the coming months. The CFA’s application was for the children to participate with their peers. The children had previously expressed a wish to do so. However, following a recent telephone call with their mother, who was in custody, their views had fluctuated.
The judge asked whether the mother could be updated regarding the dresses and other preparations for the communion. The social worker confirmed that this could be done.
The CFA lawyer asked the social worker about the mother’s position. The social worker stated that the mother wished for the communion to be deferred until the following school year, when it could take place with other family members. The social worker added that the children could receive a special blessing in their dresses with their mother. She emphasised that she was keen for the children to choose their own dresses.
When asked whether deferring the matter would have an impact on the children, the social worker replied that it would be detrimental.
Under cross-examination by the mother’s lawyer, the social worker was asked how long the children had been in their current school. She stated that they had been attending since the previous January. The mother’s lawyer observed that this was not a long period. The social worker accepted this but stated that the children had been preparing for first communion with their peers for the past year and that it would be detrimental if they did not receive communion with them.
When asked whether children of no religion or of a different religion were present during preparation, the social worker said she did not know. The judge interjected, querying whether the mother wanted the children to prepare for the event but not to participate in the ceremony itself.
The mother’s lawyer then asked whether the children could learn about the religion without receiving communion with their peers. The social worker replied that this would separate the children once again. The judge interjected and stated that the question was not clear, and the lawyer said he would move on from that line of questioning.
The mother’s lawyer asked what the disadvantage would be of deferring the communion until the following year. The social worker stated that the children would miss out on normal primary school life with their peers. She suggested that the CFA could mark the occasion again at a time of the mother’s choosing.
Evidence of the mother
The mother gave evidence and confirmed that her release date from custody was in advance of the scheduled communion. She stated that her children wanted to make their communion with her and that there was no reason it should proceed with their peers.
The mother explained that two of her brothers were in prison and they had deferred their children’s communions so that all the cousins could have a joint private ceremony. When asked specifically about her intention, she stated that she wanted a joint ceremony with her brothers’ children. When asked what preparation she had undertaken, she said she had completed no preparations with the children as she was in custody.
When asked by her own lawyer whether she wanted her extended family to attend in a more controlled private ceremony, the mother confirmed that this was what she wanted.
Under cross-examination by the GAL lawyer, the mother confirmed that she was aware the GAL had spoken to the children. It was put to her that the children had stated their wish was to receive communion with their peers. The mother replied that the social worker had put this idea into their heads. It was put to her that the children taking part in the preparation and the communion would not prevent a private ceremony with their cousins. The mother stated that this would involve two communions and no priest would facilitate two communions for the same children.
The GAL lawyer put it to the mother that she had been involved in the children’s religious instruction from a very early age and that this was the true preparation for the communion. The mother acknowledged that the current situation had arisen because she was in prison and that this was her own fault. She stated that she wanted to be there for the children in the preparation for their communion.
Evidence of the guardian ad litem
The GAL told the court that he had been appointed the previous October. He accepted that the children had given varying answers recently on the issue, depending on whom they were speaking to, and that this was an understandable reflection of their age. One of the girls had said she wanted to do it “in her house” and the other had said she wanted to do it “now”. The GAL stated that both girls had been excited (“hyper”) when he spoke to them, but he took this as meaning that both wished to proceed with their peers.
The GAL had spoken to the school principal, who reported that the children were doing very well with excellent attendance. He stated that the girls needed to be part of something positive rather than excluded or sidelined. He believed the mother could be part of the process and expressed concern that if the children did not proceed with their school, they might become resentful of their mother.
Under cross-examination by the mother’s lawyer, it was put to the GAL that if all parties had not bought into the process it might cause drama. The GAL replied that all parties had to be responsible for their own actions, including other family members. When asked where the preparation would take place, he stated that the majority of it would occur in school. When asked whether contact with their mother in prison was in the children’s best interests, he stated that it was and that the children had enjoyed the video calls.
Judge’s ruling
The judge stated that she had heard the evidence in the case and weighed the evidence of the mother. She noted that the GAL was supporting the application, and had regard to the contact facilitated with the children as well as the mother’s views.
The judge stated that what was paramount in the application was the children’s views and their best interests in proceeding with the communion. She found that it was not in the best interests of the children to delay the communion to a later date and that deferring it would be more detrimental in the long run. The judge noted that the mother was due to be released soon and that her involvement in the preparations would be facilitated. She directed that family members involved would be supported through video calls where possible.
The mother’s lawyer asked whether a stay could be placed on the judge’s decision pending appeal. The judge refused, stating that under no circumstances would she consider a stay. The judge then made specific directions for the mother to be kept involved and updated in relation to all preparations for the communion.