The Child and Family Agency withdrew an application for an interim care order it had earlier brought on the basis that the mother was engaging well with professionals and adhering to a safety plan and there was no longer a risk to the child.
The CFA solicitor told the court that he did not intend to proceed with the application on the basis that scaffolding had been put in place, along with a safety plan. The child had been on the Child Protection Notification System (CPNS) for six months and the safety plan that was in place was valid for a further three months. A second child protection case conference would be heard before the expiry of the safety plan.
The judge asked whether it would be better to adjourn the care order application to just before the expiration of the safety plan given that a welfare issue had been identified.
The CFA solicitor said that there were no grounds to proceed, that the threshold was not now met and that in fact such an application could be deemed prejudicial. In addition, the CFA solicitor said that the parent had been working with the agency and the safety plan was being complied with.
The CFA solicitor reassured the court that should the safety plan be deemed insufficient then the agency would take the necessary steps to bring an application before the court. He said all of the steps of the plan were being complied with. He added that it was up to the CFA to prosecute any such applications. He said that the current status was that the social workers believed there was no risk to the child being at home with the parents.
The mother’s solicitor said that the mother was working with the agency. The child now weighed 4.9kg and the public health nurse was attending the child weekly.
He said the mother was engaging with drug counselling, providing urine samples and was liaising with a number of staff in the support agency. In addition, the mother met with the social worker weekly and she was engaged with professionals. The community social worker was actively working the case. He said the social worker had also explained the court application to his client.
The solicitor for the GAL said that if the support and circumstances changed then intervention by the CFA should be taken.
The judge asked when the urines were clean. The CFA solicitor said they had been clean for 10 days prior to the initial ICO and since that date.
The judge referred to a series of bench warrants regarding stolen property and knives. She also referred to a series of positive drug tests which including benzos. She asked the CFA to clarify when the last clean urines were, was the mother supervised when giving the samples or had they been taken in an unsupervised manner.
The case came back to court a short time later and the CFA solicitor provided the court with an update. He said the samples were not supervised but they were provided twice a week. He said the facility where she gave the samples had no concerns regarding drugs even when the professionals attended her home during announced and unannounced visits around three times a week.
The judge said she had concerns that this was a high-risk situation.
The CFA solicitor replied that if the CFA felt that the safety plan was no longer appropriate that they would make the necessary statutory application or intervention. He said that the concerns were being managed.
The judge said that based on her experience it was not the appropriate application [to withdraw the application].
The solicitor for the mother referred to the court case of OA, and said that the GAL had gone out and visited the home, the parents were working with the CFA and the state body had satisfied itself that the application was no longer required.
The judge said it was with considerable reluctance that the court would accede to the CFA’s request to withdraw proceedings. She said that an adjournment was neutral. She said her concerns were the unprescribed substances and that, based on the information before her, there had been illicit drug use, including cocaine, as recently as three months previously.
She said if the situation deteriorated the matter was to be brought back before the court urgently.