Dublin District court granted care orders to the age of 18 for two school-going children whose father was in prison and whose mother was not involved in the proceedings. The reasons for the application were neglect and emotional abuse. The father, who was produced to the court from prison, consented to the application.
The court was told that on a previous occasion the mother had been present in court but had not been legally represented. Efforts had been made to link her in with two legal aid board solicitors but unfortunately the mother had not engaged with either. The mother was formally called but there was no response.
The court was informed that there had been two previous section 12 (emergency care order) applications invoked by the Gardai.
The court was told that the father was consenting to an order being made, subject to access and therapeutic supports being put in place. The father’s solicitor also indicated to the court that he wanted to participate in a parental capacity assessment before his release from prison which would be towards the end of the year.
The court was told by his solicitor that he was consenting to an order to 18 for the children. His solicitor told the court that that was not to be read that he was not wanting reunification with the children. He was very happy to avail of CFA supports and participate in assessments.
He asked that a court review take place in 18 months’ time and he conceded that threshold was met. The court was told that the father had very good relations with the social worker and there were continued efforts to engage the father and for prison access to take place.
The solicitor for the guardian ad litem noted the position of the parents and said that there were welfare issues in the case and assessments were ongoing. The GAL was supportive of a review in 18 months’ time and a date for assessments was being set. The solicitor for the GAL said that it was the GAL’s recommendation that those assessments would be trauma-based assessments.
The solicitor for the CFA called the Garda who invoked the first section 12. The Garda was asked had they made the right decision on the night in question and the Garda said: “Yes, 100 per cent.”
The second Garda who invoked the section second Section 12 was called to give evidence. He was asked if in hindsight had he made the right decision and he said yes, due to the condition of the children.
The case was let stand.
When the case was recalled the CFA solicitor said that discussions had taken place outside of the court. The solicitor for the CFA again reiterated to the judge that there had been two Section 12s invoked by the Gardai and an emergency care order and an initial interim care order application had been heard previously by the court. The key concerns for the two children were those of neglect and emotional abuse.
The social worker was called to give evidence and a report had been prepared to support the application for the care order.
The social worker was asked to outline her engagement with the mother. She said the mother had been invited to attend the social work department on a number of occasions to go through the reunification plan and to discuss drug and mental health supports with the professionals but unfortunately this was not followed through on and the mother had in fact torn up the plan.
The social worker said that the mother would not do a parental capacity assessment and they had been seeking funding approval for it. She said a PCA would be offered to the father on his release from prison provided he had three months of work with the social work department behind him.
The court was told that the mother had last had access with the children in the summer of the previous year and they were working with the children regarding access with the father. She said a lot of work had been done but they had encountered some difficulties in arranging things through the prison. Some pictures had been sent and they wanted to work with the father regarding access. She confirmed that the care plan was up to date and she outlined the supports that were needed for the children and the assessments that they required. She said child A required school support for dyslexia.
The GAL had made a number of recommendations, including that Child A attend a particular school and that an ASD assessment, an OT assessment and a psychological assessment be arranged. The GAL said from her perspective a section 18 order was required to the age of majority and was proportionate and she agreed to a review in 18 months’ time. She said the carers would be long term matched and a long-term fostering assessment was underway.
The GAL said that the children were both doing very well in their placement. They had had multiple placements in the past. She said that child A was more confident and was involved in sports. The child said she had felt safer whereas previously she was very parentified. She said child A said she did not need to worry so much about her younger sibling.
In relation to child B the GAL said that he was thriving, he had huge emotions to manage, he was attending school but he struggled with reading. He thrived and loved social development.
She gave the court an update on the assessments that were underway but she said that certain reports were awaited regarding recent assessments. She said that the children would require some support and would require people at school who had sensory. She said the children had no ongoing health issues and she was happy with the placement and to have a review in six months’ time to ensure that the assessments that she had recommended had been conducted.
The judge referred to the fact that this was a section 18 application by the CFA for two children to the age of majority. He noted that an ICO had made been made at the end of 2024. He noted that the GAL supported the application of the CFA for an order to 18. The judge said that the father had been produced and consented to the full care order. He said it was regrettable that the mother was not present and did was not taking up access.
He noted that the older child was now feeling safe and consented to allowing her foster carers look after her younger sibling.
He referred to the two section 12’s invoked by the Gardai and stated that threshold had indeed been met and that an order to 18 was both proportionate and necessary. He said it was good that the children had found safe harbour and that the social workers had provided a certain amount of reassurance to the father on his release.
He ordered a review in six months in relation to the assessments for the children and he ordered a more substantive review in 18 months’ time. He said the usual boilerplate conditions attached to the order and he said that the GAL should remain appointed for six months.