A judge in a provincial city was very concerned that an investigation by Gardaí into allegations made by a teenaged girl (Child A) against co-residents in a residential unit was taking so long to complete, potentially putting the placement at risk.
The child abuse substantiation procedure (CASP) investigation had commenced 18 months previously but was still only at stage 1. The girl was now making very positive progress in the residential centre but staff believed that, in the event that her co-residents were interviewed by Gardaí about the allegations, the placement would be in jeopardy. The judge acknowledged that the progress of the investigation, while outside the control of the Child and Family Agency (CFA), was putting A’s placement at risk and she listed the case for an update in two months’ time.
The CFA lawyer asked the social worker about the CASP investigation being carried out by the Gardaí. The social worker explained that A had made serious allegations against a number of co-residents in the residential centre. She alleged she was a victim of inappropriate touching. The social worker had made enquiries of the Gardaí in recent weeks and was told that the CASP investigation was still ongoing and it was only at stage 1.
A safety plan had been put in place in the centre for A, which meant that staff were present with the residents at all times. The allegations had put A’s placement at risk as there was a good chance the placement would break down if the co-resident boys had to be interviewed by Gardaí.
The social worker described a significant improvement in A’s presentation and behaviour. In the past she had caused many difficulties by her negative behaviour. The other co-residents were well-settled in the centre and the arrival of A had caused upheaval. However, in recent months A had redecorated her bedroom and had voluntarily returned to school. She had undergone three sessions of psychotherapy and all the signs were positive.
The social worker said they had met with her neuropsychologist but had not received his written report as yet. An access visit between A and her sibling had been very successful and further access had been organised. The siblings had now started communicating with one another by mobile and the relationship between them was positive.
The mother’s lawyer asked the CFA if an alternative placement had been sought in the event of the current placement breaking down. The social worker replied that an alternative placement had been planned but that the staff members in the current placement were very anxious that A should continue to stay there. She had a new desk, new bed and had returned to school. She had resumed her soccer training and had made new friends.
The lawyer for the guardian ad litem (GAL) told the judge that the GAL was very concerned about the slow progress in the CASP investigation by Gardaí but that this was beyond the control of the CFA. The social worker stressed again that it was only at stage 1 and the judge expressed her concern that this was taking so long as it had commenced 18 months previously. The GAL’s lawyer urged everyone involved to be as creative as possible. The judge asked if it was the allegations or A’s previous misbehaviour that was putting the placement most at risk and the social worker replied that it was the allegations.
The GAL informed the court that the staff at the centre really believed that it was in A’s best interests that she remained there. She said that a move for A would not be helpful and that a repair of the situation would be better if possible. She said it was a difficult balancing act; the child could not be given the message that her allegations were not being taken seriously and she was now experiencing her best behaviour in the centre. All the members of the team in the centre were co-operating well together. The GAL stated that the completion of the CASP investigation at the earliest opportunity was crucial.
The judge said that the CASP investigation was taking a considerable amount of time and that the court would need to be updated very soon in this matter. The written report to be obtained from A’s neuropsychologist was also critical. The judge directed that the case be re-entered in the event that the placement broke down. She listed the case for a date two months later.