A judge in a provincial court was asked to increase the level of access between parents and two very young children of pre-school age, Child A and B. Child A had been admitted to hospital with serious injuries, bruises and bone injuries, which were suspected of being non-accidental injuries. Neither parent could provide any explanation for the injuries.
The current access arrangements allowed for one visit for each parent per week, which was deemed sufficient by the Child and Family agency (CFA). A consultant psychologist was due to commence an assessment and a Garda investigation was also underway. Both parents were present in court and each was represented by a lawyer.
The CFA lawyer asked the social worker to explain the reduction in parental access over the previous number of weeks. The social worker replied that the level of risk was being assessed and that supervised access in a neutral venue was deemed to be the best option at present. A family support worker attended the access and observed how it was progressing. The mother was observed to have a natural bond with the children and dealt with a tantrum in a calm manner.
The CFA lawyer asked the social worker about progress in the Garda investigation and was told that the Gardaí had requested medical documents, after which a strategy meeting was due to take place. The social worker confirmed that the two children were placed with their grandparents on a temporary basis. A consultant psychologist had been engaged to carry out an assessment of the children and the terms of reference for this assessment had been established.
The CFA lawyer asked the social worker if she had obtained any explanation of A’s injuries from her meetings with the parents. The social worker said that the mother had described the moments leading up to A’s admission to hospital but not the details of A’s injuries. She added that both children were attending creche daily and enjoying it.
She said the creche carers had noted that A often placed her hands over her face or head in noisy situations. It was noted that B acted in a similar way and that both children were hypervigilant for their ages. She stated that the consultant psychologist’s report, together with the outcome of the Garda investigation, would direct the next progression.
The mother’s lawyer asked the social worker why the issues described by the creche carers were never brought to the attention of the mother, especially as she had asked for any updates. The mother had been informed that the children were doing very well. The social worker said the creche staff did not deliberately hide issues but the mother’s lawyer continued to ask about the creche protocol for communication on issues. When the mother’s lawyer said A had hit her head in the creche but that this was not communicated to her mother, the social worker assured her she would follow up on this.
The mother’s lawyer pointed out to the judge that the accident and emergency unit at the hospital had been satisfied to release A but she was kept for further investigation on the insistence of her mother. The mother’s lawyer argued that the reduction of access was unfair on both A and B and their mother. The social worker explained that the children had a lot of movement and were rotating between both sets of grandparents and that consequently, two access visits per week, one each for the mother and father, was sufficient.
The mother’s lawyer explained that there had previously been a lot of pre-bedtime contact between the mother and the children and that the access reduction could be the cause of the hypervigilance. She added that one and a half hours of access per week was not strong enough to maintain the important parental bond but the social worker disagreed, saying the assessed level of risk had to be considered.
The social worker said there was still no clarity as to what had caused the significant injuries to A and they could not safely plan for increased access until they knew what had happened. When the mother’s lawyer sought additional access in the grandparents’ home, the social worker stated that the assessed level of risk meant that a neutral venue for access was essential. While the access was under assessment, the current level of access was proportionate.
The father’s lawyer stressed that access time for forming of the parental bonds was very important and the amount of time the father was getting was very limited, being only one and a half hours a week. He sought the addition of one hour per week. The social worker reiterated her explanation given already that the current assessment outcomes would dictate levels of access in the future. When the grandparents were suggested as observers of the access, the social worker said they could not be objective as observers.
The lawyer for the guardian ad litem (GAL) stated that everyone was present in court because a young baby had received very serious injuries and that the alleged perpetrator was either the mother or father. She asked the social worker what the purpose of access was and the social worker replied that it was to maintain the parental bonds and it was being supervised and assessed at that time. The GAL’s lawyer asked if the access was currently meeting the children’s needs and was informed that it was. Both parents were present in court but did not wish to give evidence themselves.
The judge said the children were subject to care orders as A had had three separate areas of bruising on her body along with serious bone injuries, highly suspicious of non-accidental injuries. No plausible explanation for the injuries had been provided. She said that she was taking the written reports along with the cross-examinations into consideration.
There was no dispute about the quality of the access taking place and the access was appropriate by both parents. The judge stated that the current level of access was sufficient to meet the needs of two very young children. As the children were too young to personally give their own views, the recommendation of the GAL was very clear that the access was appropriate. The judge explained that she had to take account of the medical reports that had stated that A was harmed.
She made an order keeping the access schedule at the current level, which was meeting the children’s needs and noted that the assessment by the consultant psychologist was due to commence very soon.