An application for interim care orders for two children was adjourned after the CFA solicitor asked the court to adjourn it due to a lack of placements for the children. The court was told that there was a private family arrangement in place. The case had been listed on four previous occasions, and due to no placements, the section 17 application was not being proceeded with.
The solicitor for the GAL had asked that the written rationale for not proceeding with the application versus the rights of the child be provided some months previously and an explanation as to the risks involved in not proceeding. The court heard that there were outstanding assessments and that the concerns that had been raised needed to be interrogated. The GAL’s solicitor was aware that it was a CFA decision but he asked how they balanced the risk where they were not proceeding with the ICO.
The solicitor for the mother said that the case had previously come before other judges and had the effect of prejudicing his client where no evidence had been heard and the court was essentially being asked to case-manage the matter where the CFA had issued both Section 17 and Section 18 (full care order) proceedings. He said the CFA needed to do something or nothing.
He asked the court to strike out the ICO application on principle v prejudice basis and said that the applications could not be held over his client. He said that there was a private family arrangement in place and that he needed time to review the letter to and from the GAL and take instructions from his client.
The solicitor for the GAL said the GAL had asked for a meeting regarding planned travel and had asked for a safety plan relating to this travel. The GAL spoke out from the benches and said that a person that was intended to travel out of the jurisdiction with the children was the subject of recent disclosures and that a specialist unit were involved in an assessment of those disclosures.
The judge said that the court was in an impossible situation where the CFA had brought proceedings and the case had been previously adjourned. He referred to the correspondence the GAL’s solicitor had sent to the CFA and he said it was “ridiculous” that it would take a number of weeks for the CFA to respond.
He said the CFA had put both a report and an application before the court but that now the CFA was not wanting to proceed. He said he appreciated the CFA solicitor had her instructions but he said “it was a joke”, that the “system is a joke” and that the children going away outside the jurisdiction was a “ridiculous situation” and “sums up what is wrong”.
He said the CFA needed to find a placement or not bring an application. He said the agency was aware of the needs of the children and was required to keep them safe and that they could not keep adjourning the matter and leave it before the court without hearing any evidence.
The court adjourned the case for one week and said the CFA needed to make a decision and if not proceeding it should be struck out. He said the letter from the GAL needed to be responded to. The GAL again stated directly to the judge that there was an open referral and that reassurances were needed that the person involved in the travel would not be left on their own with the children or provide intimate care.
The case was let stand over lunch.
When the case was recalled the CFA solicitor said her updated instructions were to withdraw the Section 17 proceedings. She again referred to the private family arrangement that was in place. She said the safety plan was the same as the existing one and the person in question did not provide intimate care to the children. She said the CFA would respond to the GAL’s letter but there were factual errors in the letter.
The solicitor for the mother said that she had access with the children once a week. He said there was no evidence and no threshold for the Section 17 and the CFA could bring an emergency care order application if needed. He said his client was happy enough with the care that was provided to the children.
The solicitor for the GAL noted that the CFA now wanted to strike out the Section 17 and adjourn the Section 18 applications. He asked again for it to be put in writing what was grounding the withdrawal application and how the risk was being managed daily. He said it was a CFA decision to withdraw.
The judge said the Section 17 and 18 applications had been lodged and never opened before the court and there were a number of matters of concern.
He said he would withdraw the Section 17 and adjourn the Section 18.
He said the GAL was in a very difficult position. The risk was to be managed by the CFA and written responses were to be provided to the GAL. He said the Section 18 could not continue indefinitely and he adjourned the Section 18 application for one week. He said the CFA had brought the application and as a result a GAL had been appointed.
He felt that this was a proportionate response and in reality the adjournment was due to the CFA having no placement for the children. He said the sooner the letter from the GAL was responded to the better.
When the case came back to the court a week later the CFA solicitor asked the court to strike out the Section 18 proceedings as there was no immediate prospect of the CFA moving the Section 18 application. This was largely based on the fact that the CFA had no placement for the children and the children were in a “private family arrangement” which was supported by the CFA in terms of scaffolding.
The GAL had raised a number of issues and had sent a letter to the CFA seeking clarifications and information regarding a number of issues. The CFA solicitor indicted that the letter had been responded to and another letter had been received from the GAL’s solicitor raising further issues.
The solicitor for the mother said he was asking the court to accede to the CFA’s application to withdraw their proceedings. He said it was for the agency to hold and maintain the risk. He said his client was having access weekly. He said structures needed to be put in place if there were others attending access.
The solicitor for the GAL said that everyone accepted that the CFA held the risk pre- and post- the issuance of proceedings, however he said they had a statutory duty. He said he wanted an independent review of the decision-making processes. He said the CFA were not proceeding due to a lack of placements.
He said the GAL had objected and raised concerns about a planned trip for the children to the UK. He wanted minutes of a recent meeting to be provided. The solicitor for the CFA said that the GAL was present at the particular meeting.
The judge said he had no jurisdiction to force the CFA on with any application and he had no jurisdiction to object to the CFA withdrawing a Section 18 application. However, he had jurisdiction to adjourn the Section 18 application.
He said the CFA must reply to the GAL’s correspondence and provide the minutes of the specific meeting referred to.
He refused the application to strike out the Section 18 and adjourned the matter to the following week.