Dublin District Court adjourned the finalisation of a full care order application for one day so that the mother could be informed of the order and given an opportunity to attend court. The court heard that the child was thriving in the care of her maternal aunt and did not wish to have contact with her mother.
The Child and Family Agency (CFA) applied for a care order. The guardian ad litem (GAL) had been appointed and was present with a solicitor. The mother was not present, had not engaged and was not represented, although the court was told she had been served.
The CFA called the social worker, who confirmed that her report was true and accurate. She said there had been social work engagement with the family for many years and previous involvement in relation to another child. The current case had been allocated following an assessment. The social worker said repeated attempts had been made to engage the mother, but she had not engaged. There had been no access. The child did not wish to have access with her mother.
The court heard that the child was living with her maternal aunt and was doing well. She was attending school and had recently received an attendance award.
Counsel for the GAL said the child’s older brother was also living with the same aunt and had been there for a considerable period. She asked that foster payments be backdated to reflect the fact that the child had effectively been in a de facto foster placement with the aunt for some time. She also sought that access be paused or ceased for the present, as the child did not wish to have contact. She confirmed that the aunt was the mother’s sister.
The judge asked whether the mother was totally non-compliant and did not engage at all. The CFA said that was correct, but noted that the printed version of the full care order was not available that day.
The GAL then gave evidence. She said she had first become aware of the child when she was appointed in respect of the girl’s older brother and was appointed to the child not long afterwards. The child had moved in with her aunt the previous year, having experienced significant trauma. She was receiving therapeutic care, including play therapy, and there was no clear indication at that stage that further assessment was needed, though that remained under review.
The GAL said the child had arrived with head lice, in filthy and worn clothes and had bed-wetting difficulties. She had “absolutely zero interest” in engaging with her mother. The GAL had had no engagement with the mother and did not have a contact number for her.
She told the court that, in her view, the child needed the order. She had been living with her aunt for about a year, the mother was completely unengaged, and the child needed certainty. The GAL said the child had been told the role of the GAL and had given clear views.
She was worried that her mother would turn up and take her back. That had happened previously, when she had lived with the aunt for a short period before being returned to her mother. The child was now very clear that she wanted certainty and protection.
The judge indicated that the care order would be made, but the CFA explained that service of the final care order documentation might not have been properly completed.
The judge adjourned the matter until the following day for finalisation. She directed that the social worker attend the mother if possible, advise her of the court date and give her the opportunity to be present. She said she wanted her to know that the order had been made.
The existing interim care order remained in place in the meantime.