The Dublin District Court granted care orders for two adolescent children where the Child and Family Agency (CFA) had expressed concerns about emotional abuse, drug use, chronic educational neglect and medical neglect.
The solicitor for the CFA said that the agency had been unable to contact the children’s mother before the court date, however she did make contact on the morning of the hearing. The solicitor said that that it was unfortunate that the mother would not attend but noted that she was legally represented, therefore the hearing could proceed.
An emergency care order had been granted early the previous year, after which an interim care order had been granted. The children’s mother did not participate in the proceedings nor did she contest the ICO extensions. The solicitor said that drug use remained an ongoing issue for the mother.
The mother’s barrister said that he had recently spoken with the mother and she looked very well.
The mother had advised her legal team that she had stopped methadone and started a new injection treatment. The barrister said that the mother acknowledged the need for a care order but requested a short order as she wanted to work towards reunification. If that was not acceptable to the court, the barrister requested that the matter be kept under review.
The principal of the children’s school said between 2022 and 2023 Child B was absent from school 60 per cent of the time. Now in care this child was present in school 97 per cent of the time and his attendance would have been 100 per cent but for a holiday he went on with his grandmother. The principal said that there was no comparison between now and when the children were with their mother.
Between 2021 and 2024 Child A was absent almost 80 per cent of the time. The former principal had set up a number of initiatives with the mother such as morning phone calls to help her get up and get the children ready for school and school staff personally going to collect the children from the flats. He said that the school had been willing to go beyond normal initiatives, but sadly none of the initiatives had worked. The mother always had an excuse as to why the children were not in school despite the family home being only about a five-minute walk from the school. Since moving to live with their maternal grandmother the children attended school, looked great, and had stories to tell from activities that they had been involved in.
The principal said that both children were in speech and language therapy. He said that there were markers that the children came from a difficult family situation, such as being quieter than the other children. The children had a range of supports such as coming out of regular class and attending a class that had robust support for them.
A garda said that there had been Garda involvement with the family over a number of years due to the family’s engagement in criminal behaviour. Garda involvement included drug raids on the family property in which €10,000 worth of cannabis had been found. The mother had some criminal convictions such as drug possession and road traffic convictions and there had been bench warrants.
The children had two older brothers, both involved in criminality. One had been convicted and sentenced and was currently serving two and a half years in prison. The second brother had a number of offences that related to when he was a juvenile, as well as more recent offences, including firearms offences, intent to cause harm, violent disorder and drug possession. The mother and the two older brothers continued to reside in the family home.
The judge said that she was struck by the fact that the children were at home when gardai raided the family home.
The social worker said that the mother was not engaging, and it was her opinion that the case warranted a care order until the age of majority for both children. She said that the family first became known to the CFA when the oldest child was born. The CFA continued to try and engage with the family despite the family being very aggressive. The social worker said she had “an ok relationship” with the mother. The mother had not been threatening or abusive but on occasion when the social worker had to challenge her things got a bit icy.
The CFA had obtained supervision orders in 2023 and 2024, however the supervision orders did not work. The children had been brought into care in January 2024 when the mother did not collect them from school.
The children’s father had never been involved in their lives and they did not know who he was.
The social worker said that the children were thriving and that the placement was meeting their needs. They were residing with their maternal grandmother and aunt and had a great relationship with them. The only issue was that the home was a three-bedroom home that housed the grandmother, aunt, uncle and the two children. The uncle had moved abroad, which had solved the issue of space, but he had then returned in January. The aunt was the primary carer therefore the CFA had provided letters to Dublin City Council so that the aunt could get her own house.
The mother’s engagement with the CFA was inconsistent. There were times when she did not attend for access when she said she would, therefore the children were not told about access in advance because there was no guarantee that the mother would show up. At one point access had gradually improved, however the mother said things about the children’s foster carers which had made child A very upset, so child A had decided not to attend access with her mother. The social worker said that the mother’s poor level of engagement with access had an impact on the children, particularly child B, who got quite upset when his mother did not attend.
There had been an improvement in the mother’s presentation. She was involved with a national drug treatment program. Her treatment had changed from methadone to injections once a week with a regular urine sample being provided, however the urine results were not clean as most were positive for cocaine. She had attended a residential programme for 24 hours, but she had left saying that her house was going to get boarded up. There had been a concern that she had tried to sell tablets at the residential program.
The social worker said that the mother did not accept that she was struggling to cope, and she had minimal insight into the impact her lifestyle had had on her children. The children required a stable and comfortable home and predictable care.
Social worker: “The children were neglected. They have improved. They understand why they are not in their mother’s care and the older they get the more they will be able to reflect on what was happening in mom’s home.”
The children’s medical needs had also been neglected. Child B had last been seen by a GP in 2019. The social worker said that it was suspected that Child B has undiagnosed ADHD and he had been referred to CAHMS. There were presently no recommendations for psychological care as Child B required at least 12 to 18 months living in a stable home first.
Mother’s barrister: “The mother accepts that the children have to remain in care.”
Social worker: “She did not say that to me.”
The mother’s barrister said that the mother’s new drug treatment could only be started because the mother was able to reduce her methadone. The mother had put on some weight and said that she was feeling much better, and she was now willing to engage with other supports. The mother missed her daughter and hoped that she would change her mind about attending access with her mother.
The guardian ad litem (GAL) said that the children were engaged in various supports such as life storybook, speech and language and occupational therapy. Play therapy would be offered by the school in September.
The GAL said that she had met and spent time with the children at their foster carer’s home. Child B needed a lot of support relating to his undiagnosed ADHD. Child A said that she was very happy. The children had a comfortable, lovely home, lots of food, good rules and appropriate supervision such as restricted screen time. The only issue was space which it was hoped would be rectified if the aunt was able to get her own council house.
The GAL had tried to meet with the mother several times, but the mother had refused. The mother had finally met with the GAL in May and the mother had presented as clean with clean clothes and not under any influence.
The mother’s barrister said that the mother made contact over the lunch break and consented to the care order.
The judge said that this was a very sad case, but it was clear that the children required a care order. She said that she was particularly struck by the school principal’s evidence in relation to the children’s demeanour and presentation and the neglect that could be seen on them.
Judge: “The children have lived with violence; witnessed it, were subject to it.”
The children had been living in violence for almost all of their lives. The social work department had required a garda escort to the home where the two children were living. Child B was only six when Garda searches of the family home found a large quantity of drugs. Child A had made recent disclosures of physical abuse, and there were reports that when Child B was five, he had a black eye.
In one report made to the CFA the caller said that they could hear slapping coming from the apartment. The judge said that there would have had to be a significant level of force used [for a person] to be able to hear slapping coming from another apartment and that gave an indication of the level of violence the children were living with. The children had endured enough.
The judge granted the care order until the age of 18 for both children with a review in one year’s time.