A judge in Dublin District Court granted an extension of an interim care order, ICO but expressed her concern about changing the allocation of a social worker and the impact of Tusla reforms on young people in care. The order was consented to by the child’s mother, but she did not accept the need for the child to remain in care long ter.
The social worker gave evidence updating the court in relation to issues facing the young person in care. There were significant concerns as they had been seen getting into a car with unknown persons. This was a particular concern as the young person was in a Special Emergency Arrangement (SEA) and it was acknowledged by the social work department that an SEA was not a suitable placement.
The social worker informed the court that the unit had begun the registration process but that this had not progressed. The unit had previously applied but had not passed the tendering process. The social worker was unable to provide information as to why it had not passed the tendering process and why the second application had not concluded.
Under cross examination from the solicitor for the guardian ad litem the social worker stated that they were making efforts to find a registered placement and that they were negotiating with the National Placement Team and that the young person was considered a priority as they were in an SEA. The solicitor for the guardian asked how long they had been in the SEA and how long the young person had this priority.
The social worker stated that the young person had been in an SEA for 12 months, and had been a priority for all that time. The solicitor for the guardian suggested that priority did not seem to change things much if the young person was still waiting 12 months later despite being a priority”.
The social worker stated that it was difficult to get a placement for this young person due to their challenging behaviours, including the amount of cannabis they were smoking. The solicitor for the guardian put it to the social worker that the fact the young person was in an SEA was leading to these sorts of behaviours, so any difficulty in finding a placement was caused by the Child and Family Agency failing to provide a suitable placement in the first instance.
The solicitor for the guardian also cross examined the social worker in relation to social worker allocation. The social worker stated that the transition to a new social work team had begun and it was not feasible to maintain the currently allocated social worker.
The guardian then gave evidence, setting out their concerns about the change in allocated social worker for the young person. They stated that the change of allocation was driven by the reform of Tusla and not the needs of the child. The guardian gave evidence that they wrote to the principal social worker and set out their concerns and suggested the social work department seek a derogation from the policy, but these concerns and suggestions were dismissed.
The judge ruled that the grounds to extend the ICO had been met, and extended the order for 28 days. The judge expressed concerns in relation to the change of social worker and stated that “taking the allocated social worker out of this child’s life at this time is not in their best interests”. The judge stated that the child needed stability.
The judge refrained from issuing a direction that the allocated worker continue as the allocated worker but directed that the guardian provide information to the court about the impact of this change on the young person and their views on this change. The judge further directed the social work department to provide updated information relating to the tendering process for the SEA, and requested that the agency would review the question of allocation, focusing on the best interests of the child.