Dublin District Court extended a care order (CO) until the age of 18 for four young girls. The mother also had an application for access before the court. The mother attended court but was not represented. The father did not attend court and he had also declined to provide an address to the CFA.
Due to security concerns around the court hearing, the CFA had engaged private security for the social work department. The mother claimed that she was not a threat to the CFA, however she agreed that security was needed and said that she could not believe what had happened. The GAL participated in the hearing via video-link arising out of alleged threats made to her and her family.
She said that everyone talked about and repeatedly referred to an incident that involved one of the children and claimed that it was very traumatic for her community. Although she repeatedly referred to an incident, she never explained what she was referring to.
The solicitor for the guardian ad litem (GAL) asked for clarification on the incident. The social worker said that from what she understood the mother had sent videos of children being tortured. One of the girls was also reported to have been intoxicated while travelling on a Dublin Bus, and another daughter was reported as being in hospital vomiting. The social worker said that they had had no reports of those incidents and did not believe they happened. She said that there are workers transporting the girls to school every day and the CFA had received no such reports.
The social worker said that since coming into care the children had made a number of disclosures. The four children were in a general foster placement and were well settled and got on very well with their foster carers. They are enrolled in a private school, which they enjoy. They go to school every day, however, they are socially incompetent. One child had just had her first play date. They also had nightmares, but in general were doing well.
The CFA said that recommendations had been made in respect of the mother’s parenting assessment, but the mother had not engaged with any of the recommendations. The CFA said that the mother did not live in the jurisdiction, and they had been unable to contact her.
The children’s father had also been invited to participate in the assessment process but he declined. He was also asked to engage in family therapy several times between 2024 and 2025, however, he had declined those invitations as well. One of the children made an allegation that the father had slapped her during an access visit therefore access was discontinued with him. The father then disengaged with the CFA.
The three older children refuse to see either of their parents. The youngest child did not remember the incident that gave rise to them being taken into care, so she had not decided whether she wanted to see her mother. The CFA said that due to the therapeutic needs of the children the CFA required long term care orders. The children were scheduled to undertake multi-disciplinary assessments, therefore an order until 18 was required as the girls needed stability and continuity.
The mother was a convert to Islam and was living outside of Ireland. She also had a young son with a man who was not the father of the four girls.
The mother said that the children could give their own view and in her opinion the CO extension is a bit drastic as the children were alive and well fed when they were with her. In addition, she argued that the children might be placed separately which would affect the sibling bond. She also disputed the claim that the children’s father was uncontactable as she had been speaking with him. She requested a phone call and some pictures of her daughters. The mother also claimed that one of the children had been diagnosed with dyslexia, and according to her, the school records indicated that she had missed a number of days in respect of her dyslexia therapy.
The social worker said that access with the father had been ongoing up until July 2025 when it was suspended. The children have regular access with each other and their grandmother. The children needed stability and therapy before access was granted and she did not think that the parents had engaged sufficiently with the CFA.
The GAL joined the proceedings via video-link as she did not think it safe for her to attend court. The mother made an allegation in court against the GAL, which the GAL’s solicitor said was entirely false. He claimed that the mother had harassed the GAL and both he and the GAL considered coming off record because of the harassment. He also claimed that one of the other solicitors was reported to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority (LSRA).
The Judge said that the issues giving rise to the care order predated the GAL’s involvement with the family. A referral to the CFA had been made in 2017 in respect of domestic violence. He said that he would not ask the mother to give evidence given that she was a lay litigant, however the mother insisted that she wanted to give evidence.
Mother’s evidence
The mother said that it was a very sensitive situation and, in her opinion, the way the CFA went after her was very harsh, unnecessary, and dramatic. The CFA were very harsh, and they punished her for not bowing down and agreeing to what they said, and it was not fair to sever the biological relationship. If the CFA had fears and concerns, then those could and should be monitored. She said that it had happened in Irish history where children were taken from mothers and then adopted, and then issues with the children started. She said that she wanted to have a relationship with her daughters, and she should at least be allowed a phone call with them.
The GAL said that the current care order had been made in 2024 in respect of all four children. The foster carers are long term matched and the children had good relationships them. The girls are happy and feel safe, comfortable, and secure.
One child spoke to the GAL about memories she had from when she lived at home. The girl said that she did not want to see her father as he was domineering and told her how to behave. The girl’s father had stopped engaging with the CFA and had not complied with the recommendations from the parenting assessment. The GAL said that it was her opinion that the children needed to focus on their therapy.
The GAL said that the mother had not seen the children since the initial care order in 2024. The mother’s behaviour and correspondence to the GAL had to be referred to gardai. The mother had made allegations about the GAL’s family, and the GAL felt threatened by the mother. The matter was previously before another judge who said that it was her opinion that the behaviour of the mother was a threat against the administration of justice.
The mother then made another allegation in court against the GAL and the judge told her to stop. He said that he had no jurisdiction in respect of anything other than the application before it.
The mother asked how she could be perceived as a threat when she had not been in the jurisdiction. She claimed that her child was harmed while in the care of the CFA and that she was one of many. She asked the GAL whether it was beneficial to children to separate them from their mother for 18 years. The GAL said that it was appropriate in the circumstances.
The GAL said that she was court-appointed and only trying to carry out her duties, but the allegations the mother had made about the GAL and her family was inappropriate and making her task more difficult. She then read a letter written by the oldest daughter. In the letter the girl said that she wanted to stay where she was.
The mother said that she had been abroad, and she would like the opportunity to obtain legal representation.
Mother: “I haven’t been worn down yet, and I am not going to be. I don’t know how this is benefiting anyone. I think I need legal representation before a care order.”
Judge: “The matter is before the court today for a CO. I presume that you had the chance to get legal representation.”
The judge refused to adjourn the proceedings. He said that the mother had raised the issue of fair procedures, however fair procedures must be viewed in the context in which it was raised.
The care order was granted in 2024 therefore the mother had been aware for 18 months that the matter would be heard by the court. The mother chose not to seek legal representation and chose to remain outside of the jurisdiction for a considerable period of time. The children’s welfare would be exacerbated by more delays. In considering fair procedures and the rights of the children the court found that the matter was too far gone for the matter to be adjourned to allow the mother to obtain legal representation.
The court was satisfied that the care order was necessary and proportionate as a short order would only expose the children to more uncertainty. The court granted the order until the age of 18 for all four children.