The judge in the District Court in a provincial city expressed serious concern over the welfare of two pre-teen siblings currently residing in a residential care placement. The boys, who had been in care since early 2023 under full care orders, were reportedly being bullied by a newly-admitted resident. The judge called for the immediate removal of the disruptive resident, saying that “one incident is one too many.”
The solicitor for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) told the court that the social worker’s report highlighted some behavioural issues on the part of the boys. She also said that the guardian ad litem’s (GAL’s) report, which was before the court, highlighted live risks to the children.
The social worker told the court that the two boys had been making significant progress in their current residential placement after a difficult start in care. They had been placed with foster carers when they first came into care, but this arrangement had broken down due to the boys’ emotional dysregulation, which stemmed from their early childhood trauma.
The social worker said that the two boys had struggled since the recent arrival of a new resident at the residential placement. There had been a number of incidents involving the new resident and the two boys. The boys were being intimidated by the other resident. The younger boy had been harmed in one incident which caused bruising to his arm and he had been very traumatised by the incident. In another incident, property belonging to the boys had been damaged. However, the social worker said that there had been no further incidents for over a month.
She said the boys were in good health and the eldest boy was due to start secondary school the following school term. Both boys were doing well in school and were very bright. They were interested in chess and excellent at mathematics. The boys had struggled a little socially and there had been some behavioural issues, but the main issue now was the presence of the new resident. The boys were afraid of the new resident and were angry with her being there.
The social worker said that the boys had previously had some specialist attachment-focussed, trauma-informed therapy. However, this therapeutic intervention was not available while the boys remained in the residential unit. Life story work for the two boys was expected to commence shortly. Both had also been referred to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS). The elder boy had been assessed for ASD. While the assessment had determined that he did not have ASD, it had recommended some supports for him.
Both parents were present in court, supported by legal representation and an interpreter. The social worker said that both parents were engaging with the CFA. Access visits had been scheduled monthly for 30 minutes with each parent separately. The older boy had been a little tense at the access visits, but the younger boy had been coping well with it.
The GAL said that he had been the boys’ GAL since they had first been taken into care. They had originally been in a foster carer placement, but that this had become unsustainable because the boys had been highly emotionally dysregulated and the foster carers had not been able to cope. He said that it had been a difficult time for the boys until the current residential placement had been found, where they had started to settle.
The boys had experienced a lot of trauma when they were young. The boys had come into care after the family car had entered a river with the two boys inside it. It was not clear how the car had come to be in the river. However, the boys’ parents had been intoxicated at the time. An Garda Siochana had invoked their powers under section 12 of the Child Care Act 1991 to remove the children from danger. Ultimately, the boys were made subject to full care orders due to their parents’ alcohol abuse and transient lifestyle.
When the boys first entered the residential unit a huge amount of work was done with them to help them with their emotional regulation. This included a lot of sensory work. It had taken about 18 months for the boys to finally settle in and over the past 10 months they had been doing exceptionally well. The GAL said that both boys were highly intelligent and were very interested academically. They had struggled with the stress of competition but with supports they had come on a huge amount.
The GAL said that they had been thriving until the recent arrival of the new resident. The new resident, an individual born male but identifying as female, had scared the boys. In one incident, the resident had chased the older boy up a stairs and he had had to lock himself in a room. Both boys had been very clear with the GAL that they loved where they were living but that if the new resident continued to live there then they wanted to move as they did not feel safe there. However, their preference was that the new resident would leave instead. The GAL said that while there hadn’t been any further incident in the previous six to eight weeks, he feared that all their hard work would be undone. “All of the focus is on this [new] person now instead of on [the eldest boy] starting secondary school”.
The judge said that the situation beggared belief. She asked why was it the new resident had been put into this residential centre given the fact that the environment had been stable. She said that it was a big ask for these boys to accept such a change. She did not want the two boys to be split up because of these incidents. She said that the voice of the child was that the two boys wanted the other resident to be removed.
The father’s solicitor told the court that access with the boys had been going very well. She said that the father wished to increase his access time with the boys. The GAL agreed that access could be increased but only at children’s pace and suggested that it might include more varied activities.
The judge said that the two boys were intelligent and very eager to learn. This was being disrupted because of the arrival of the new resident. “It had taken so much time for the boys to feel safe,” the judge said. The judge insisted that either the boys were to be moved together or that the new resident must go.
She put the matter in for an update a week later when she would be looking for answers as to what was going to happen.
However, when the matter returned to court a week later little had changed.
At this hearing the judge expressed the view that the children might struggle to understand and cope with the other resident’s gender identity. She asked what steps had been taken to address the boys’ expressed fear. The social worker replied that an extra staff member had been put in place, that the children were subject to constant supervision and that they were never left alone.
The judge reminded the social worker of her direction the previous week that either the other young person or the two boys must be removed from the placement. However, the social worker said that there was no other placement available. She said that safety planning had been in place since the two incidents had occurred about two months previously, and that the additional staffing had been in place since then. There had also been a meeting to discuss therapeutic planning.
She told the court that a risk assessment had been conducted prior to the other child taking up the placement, that such assessments were conducted between the social worker and the placement team. The judge insisted on seeing it and said that she wished to speak to the people who had conducted the risk assessment.
The social worker did not know if there had been any consideration given to finding another placement given the incompatibility between the three children as this had been a matter for the other social work team. She confirmed that the matter was being managed within the same Social Work Department, by the same Principal Social Worker but that different social workers were involved in respect of the boys and the other resident. She said that she was not aware that any exploration of an alternative placement had been undertaken.
The judge was dissatisfied with the lack of progress. She wanted to hear directly from the decision-makers responsible for placement planning and from the individual who conducted the risk assessment.
She listed the matter to come before her again in three weeks’ time.