The District Court made an interim care order (ICO) in respect of two unaccompanied minors. An emergency care order (ECO) had been made weeks earlier.
The boys were brothers and had left their home in Afghanistan after two of their siblings had been killed by the Taliban and their father had gone missing. It took them several years before they reached Europe. The boys were seeking international protection.
The boys were placed in a special emergency accommodation (SEA) in the care of Child and Family Agency (CFA) staff. The boys were initially accommodated under section 5 of the Childcare Act 1991, which provides that the CFA can provide suitable accommodation, as opposed to care, for a child if it appears that the child is homeless.
The barrister for the guardian ad litem asked whether the boys had been committed to care upon their arrival in Ireland or simply accommodated. He said it was clear that the boys had suffered trauma, and that they had no guardian in the state and therefore could not consent to medical treatment. He asked the social worker whether it was clear that the boys required care as opposed to merely accommodation. The social worker said that a lot of their children had suffered trauma but that the CFA would not necessarily apply for a care order for children of the boys’ age and that the CFA accommodated children as they could.
The GAL’s barrister said that the CFA had a duty to take children into voluntary care in circumstances where the children require care. One of the boys was a young adolescent and given their history and trauma their care needs should have been assessed. He said that the boys were given little more than accommodation.
The judge asked when an eligibility assessment for care would be undertaken after an unaccompanied minor arrives in Ireland. He questioned whether there was a policy to determine how long accommodation under section 5 of the Childcare Act 1991 should be provided.
The social worker said that they would meet with the child, identify any vulnerabilities, complete an intake assessment, and then if any other concerns were identified they would move on to an eligibility assessment. She said that once the CFA undertook an eligibility assessment the CFA tried to find a foster placement for the child.
The boys had moved between several special emergency arrangements and were in such a facility when a serious incident occurred. The social worker said that a new long-term residential accommodation was proposed, and the boys were very happy with it. The barrister for the GAL asked the court to make a direction that no other child was placed with the boys.
The social worker said that the boys engaged well with services, but that they presented as traumatised and scared. They were seeing a therapist and required support and time to heal. The social worker also said that the CFA would support the boy’s extracurricular activities.
The social worker also said that the boys would be supported in practising their faith. The boys wanted to attend a mosque but indicated that they did not know where one was. It was also discussed whether arrangements could be made to accommodate their religious needs and facilitate access to religious services. A referral had also been made to international social services to determine whether any family members residing in Europe could provide support to the boys.
The guardian ad litem supported the application for an ICO. She said that the children were very traumatised and that they were very happy to engage with care. In respect of section 5, children only being accommodated as opposed to being taken into care, the GAL said that the boys had travelled alone over several years. They had encountered many strangers and therefore required care as opposed to accommodation. She also said that she had concerns in respect of the SEAs, particularly in respect of the staff and their qualifications.
The judge said that it was unprecedented and deeply concerning and troubling to witness what the court saw on a daily basis. The use of SEAs was disturbing. The CFA spent tens of millions of euros on private providers who make substantial profits off of accommodating vulnerable children who are placed in unmonitored hotel rooms, apartments etc. The judge agreed with the GAL and said that a review of their use should be undertaken.
The barrister for the GAL said that the situation was even worse than described. He said that the units are regulated, but that the providers do not comply with the regulations because they are unregistered. He said that it was an offence to run an unregistered children’s residence.
The court granted the interim care order.