A judge in Dublin District Court refused an application to extend an interim care order for a primary school aged child who had been in care for several months. A date set for a full care order hearing was set for a month’s time.
On reviewing the court file, the judge asked if the respondent mother had been properly served as there was no declaration of service. Solicitors for the social work department stated that the mother had not engaged and this had led to a decision not serve her notice that day.
The judge questioned this decision and stated that the agency had served her every other month why had this changed this month. The solicitors for the agency stated that the mother had not engaged with the social work department in any way and that they had a concern that the address on file was out of date. The social workers had a concern that confidential and sensitive information in the post could have gone to an unrelated house.
The judge stated that the social workers had created “an entirely unacceptable position for the court, caught between a rock and a hard place”. The court accepted based on the evidence before the court that the threshold continued to be met and that the child required to be in care. The judge stated that the court was also unable to proceed with an interim care order where the mother of the child was not on notice.
The judge stated that they were also aware of the requirements of section 24 of the Act and the fact that the welfare of the child should be paramount and the reality was that the child could not realistically return home today.
The judge agreed to allow an ex parte application for an emergency care order to be made and granted the order for one week. The judge directed that issues of service should be addressed in the next week so that a proper application could be made on the next date.