A judge of the district court extended an interim care order for two children who had been placed with their grandparents and were doing well. However, the younger child had been admitted to hospital with unexplained injuries.
The social worker gave evidence that the younger child had been admitted to hospital on two occasions with unexplained fractures and bruising, including fractures to both femurs and ribs. He stated that no medical explanation had been identified and that medical investigations had not established an underlying medical cause for the injuries. The social worker stated that the parents had consistently stated that they were the sole carers for the younger child at the time.
In relation to access, the social worker stated that each parent had two access visits per week, each lasting two hours. One visit was supervised by CFA staff and the other by the grandparents.
The court heard that a child in care review meeting had taken place since the interim care order had been granted. The father was unable to attend due to work commitments but had agreed that the meeting could proceed in his absence. The social worker stated that the father later met with the social work team to review the minutes of the meeting. Both parents had requested a review of access with a view to increasing it.
The social worker stated that the CFA supported access but that any increase would require review by the child protection and welfare team and it would need to occur on a “phased basis”.
The social worker was asked about organisational restructuring within the CFA and whether the case would transfer to another team. He confirmed that the case would transfer to the child protection and welfare team but that this had been delayed due to restructuring and issues with the case management system.
In relation to the children’s health, the social worker stated that the younger child was recovering from fractures. He stated that there were no medical concerns in respect of the older child, although the child had recently experienced an ear infection which had resolved. Some concerns had been noted regarding speech and language development, as the older child was not yet using words but was attempting to communicate. The social worker stated that a recent visit by the public health nurse for the younger child had not identified any further concerns.
The court heard that childcare arrangements were being explored for both children. The social worker stated that only one suitable facility had been identified, located approximately thirty minutes from both parents. The father objected to this placement on the basis of distance from both sets of grandparents and the length of the daily journey. The social worker stated that the facility could provide between thirty-five and forty hours of childcare per week and said that attendance would support the children’s development and provide respite to the relative foster carers.
The social worker stated that the younger child was six months old. He was asked about the status of the Garda investigation into the injuries sustained by that child. The social worker stated that he had spoken with the Sergeant in charge of the investigation, who was seeking medical records through a court application. He said he was unsure whether parental consent had been withheld. The court also heard that a medical professional had given a timeframe of approximately eight weeks for an assessment of the children.
The lawyer for the mother asked whether a clear plan had been put in place pending the transfer to the new team. The social worker stated that the child in care review had taken place but that restructuring had caused delays. He stated that decisions regarding increased access would ultimately be made by the child protection and welfare team. When asked whether assessment of the grandparents as foster carers had been delayed due to restructuring, the social worker stated that their applications were to be brought before the fostering committee, but that this would take time.
The lawyer for the mother asked whether all relevant information had been provided to the medical professional carrying out the assessment. The social worker stated that initial contact had been made but that no start date had yet been confirmed. He reiterated that the CFA supported increased access in principle, subject to a phased approach.
The lawyer for the father asked about the grandparents’ care of the children. The social worker stated that both placements were working well and that there had been no difficulties between the families. He said that the father adjusted his working hours to facilitate access. He stated that there was no clear timeframe for increasing access and reiterated that any increase would be phased. He stated that the older child became distressed at the end of access visits but that the current arrangements supported the children’s emotional and psychological needs.
The lawyer for the guardian ad Litem (GAL) questioned the social worker regarding the hospital presentations of the younger child. The social worker confirmed that the injuries were unexplained and that the parents had been unable to account for them.
The GAL gave evidence. She stated that access had been discussed at the child in care review and that both parents sought increased access. She said that the purpose of access was to maintain the children’s relationships with their parents during the assessment process and that the current arrangements were meeting the children’s needs. She stated that she intended to observe access in the coming weeks.
The GAL told the court that the grandparents had pre-existing relationships with the children. While it was unusual for the children to be placed in separate households, she was satisfied that the social work department was managing the situation appropriately. She stated that the outstanding issue was progression of the case following the transfer to the new team. Under cross-examination by lawyers for the children’s parents, she stated that the children required time to adjust to their care arrangements and that the grandparents required support. She stated that she had not yet had an opportunity to discuss increased access with the father.
The judge stated that the application before the court was for an extension of the interim care order for a further period of twenty-eight days. She was satisfied that the statutory threshold had been met and that the children’s health and welfare would be protected. She granted the extension of the interim care order.
The judge stated that the parents sought increased access but that this could not be progressed until the transfer to the new CFA team had occurred. She indicated that any increase should be phased and should commence before the next court date if possible, but she did not make a formal direction on this issue.
The judge stated that the case centred on a very young child with unexplained injuries and advised the parents to take legal advice regarding the release of medical records. She stated that the Gardaí intended seek a court order to obtain the record. The judge concluded by saying that the children were being well cared for by their relative foster carers.