The District Court extended an interim care order (ICO) for an infant and a toddler living in a rural supported living arrangement with their mother. While the mother had four children, only two were subject to this court order. Both parents were present and the father was unrepresented. He contested the application.
The solicitor for the CFA said that the children were residing in a placement staffed by full time CFA personnel and their mother was living with them. A foster placement was being sought. The toddler had been in a foster placement for a time, but had been returned to the mother when this became unavailable.
The mother’s solicitor said that the children’s mother was adopting a neutral position to the application and informed the court that she was in a “unique position” as she was caring for the children full time and the CFA placement staff were providing her with support. The mother’s position was that she was not clear as to why there was an ICO application as she was caring for the children and only needed the CFA placement staff’s support for driving and engaging with social workers. The mother’s solicitor told the court that the mother wanted to demonstrate that she could care for the children and she was on a housing list.
The solicitor for the guardian ad litem (GAL) said that the GAL supported an extension of the ICO and it was “the least worst option” as the children were cared for by their mother and CFA placement staff. The GAL supported the continuation of the ICO in circumstances where the children were in a stable placement and had access with their father.
Social worker
The social worker asked that the extension be granted and said that the children were in a supportive living environment with staff who were there 24/7 and provided parenting and emotional support to the mother. They also supported her with transport, bringing the children to appointments and providing a stable environment. The solicitor for the CFA asked about concerns the social worker had for the children’s safety.
Social worker: “The concern is because if we don’t have this placement, they will have to go through emergency placement and would have to move around.”
The social worker said this would not be beneficial for the children’s emotional attachment and she was concerned that if the extension was not granted that the pattern would continue and the children would continue to be exposed to domestic abuse and conflict from the relationship that the mother was in. The social worker said that the mother had been seen with the father in breach of the safety plan stipulating that she did not communicate with him.
Social worker: “It destroyed trust that we have that she could keep the children safe.”
The social worker had recommended that the mother engage with a Child Abuse Substantiation Procedure (CASP) assessment and was exploring other ways to support her. The social worker said that the children had access to their father every fortnight and that there was no major issues in this regard. They had been looking to increase the access times and facilitate video calls, as requested by the father, but received no engagement from the father or his previous legal team on that. The social worker said they remained open to making these arrangements.
In relation to foster placements, the social worker said they were trying to secure placements and had found two potential placements but one was ruled out due to the proximity to the family.
Social worker: “We still want this application to be extended to give the children stability and for [the mother] to engage with CASP assessments.”
The mother’s solicitor said her client had engaged with a CASP assessment and was awaiting the report. She asked whether her client was the primary carer for the children and the social worker agreed that she was. She said her client wanted to stay in the supportive living arrangement and was open to a supervision order. The social worker said a supervision order was not sought at that stage.
She asked about her client’s not leaving the supportive accommodation and the social worker said the mother had left the living arrangement with one child, who was not the subject of these proceedings, in breach of the safety plan in place and had denied this on numerous occasions afterwards. The mother’s solicitor said her client met with the father on one occasion and the social worker agreed that most of the time she stayed in the supportive facility with the exception of appointments, but that it was hard to trust what the mother said after this breach of trust. The social worker said they did not know what would happen if the children returned home with their mother.
The mother’s solicitor asked if the arrangement would stay in place without the ICO and the social worker responded: “No it wouldn’t, that supportive environment is created specifically because the children are in care.”
The father was invited by the judge to ask questions of the social worker and he said that what was said in terms of the social workers working to increase access was a lie and that he had been refused extended access. The social worker said they had been in contact with the father’s previous legal team. The judge stressed that it was urgent that the father get in contact with a solicitor as they could advise him on bringing an application to increase access. The social worker said the team leader could keep in contact with the father in relation to this.
The father asked the social worker if the placement staff in the supportive facility were qualified to deal with children under primary school age as there had been an incident in which the infant was left with faeces on his body and his nappy was put on backwards after an access visit the father had. The social worker stated that the manager has said he was the one who changed the nappy but that he was well qualified and had completed a level 8 in social care.
The father raised concerns about the emotional toll for the toddler that had been put into a placement and returned to the supportive facility subsequently, given the prospect of further foster placement. The social worker said they children would not be moved unless there was a stable placement for them.
The judge inquired as to the context in which the toddler was removed from the initial placement. The social worker said “we were informed that would be a long-term placement” but “they changed their decision and are not available for any placement in future because of personal circumstances.” The social worker confirmed that this was not a circumstance they could have foreseen and they wanted to avoid a similar situation occurring in the future.
The social worker said there was extended access granted to the father for the infant’s birthday and that the team leader was open to discussing further access to include Microsoft Teams visits with the toddler.
The solicitor for the GAL asked whether placement arrangements would be done with consideration for the children and the parents. The social worker said they would work with the family when the transition happens.
The solicitor for the GAL asked how long it took to receive the CASP assessment results. The social worker replied: “Six weeks to receive the report but it might be sooner”. When asked if it was recommended that the father do a CASP assessment, the social worker said: “He did say he would do it.”
Counsel: “Why are you making that recommendation?”
Social worker: “The violence and aggression that he has, that we have witnessed. There has been a lot of abuse and we feel he needs to address his aggression and violence.” The social worker agreed that it would be for the benefit of his children that he could manage his emotions.
The judge enquired about the completion of a parenting capacity assessment and the social worker confirmed this had already been done.
Guardian ad litem
The GAL confirmed she had prepared a report. When asked by the solicitor how the children were doing in the placement she said “the children have made progress, it is very good. Whatever comes next will require planning and given what happened with [the toddler] I think it is important it comes before the court.” The GAL said if a placement was identified the toddler could not be moved in quickly as it would put her at risk of not getting on with the carers.
The judge suggested that if a placement were identified it could be re-mentioned before the court in order for a plan to be presented.
The GAL said the toddler “has been through a lot” and that she had been involved for five months before the children came into care so she had a good insight into “life at home for the children”.
GAL: “This placement, if it was to go and the scaffolding around mother was to go, it puts them at risk to ongoing emotional abuse.”
The GAL recommended emotional attachment assessments be completed on the children. She told the court that the mother was loving with the children and while they were experiencing calm in the placement, the children were still hypervigilant. The GAL confirmed that the mother had extended access and remained the primary care giver.
The GAL said that the mother found it difficult “to get away from the father” and her concern was that the mother was in a controlling relationship.
The solicitor for the GAL asked her about the father and the potential for a CASP assessment.
GAL: “The father and I do not have contact, he has been abusive and threatening. I think he loves his children and if he could engage, everyone wants him to have good relationship with them. I’ve seen him with them on one occasion and he is good with them. He has no awareness of how fighting and aggression can affect them. Both parents love the children.”
The GAL recommended the father engage with someone to understand how the aggression affected the children and that a clinical lens was needed to understand the children’s responses to the adults. The GAL said these assessments would be critical in supporting foster carers and potential placements.
The mother’s solicitor asked the GAL if the mother was engaging with the placement and was open to staying in it long term. The GAL confirmed this and said “this is a very difficult situation” where the toddler had just been returned and the “children have shown signs of benefiting from being back together”.
The mother’s solicitor asked whether the mother had raised concerns about being in an isolated location which made it difficult to engage in regular life. The GAL said she was aware of that concern but that she thought the placement was good for the children as it provided them with more space than their previous living conditions. The GAL said the infant was showing signs of development such as sitting up and crawling. The mother’s solicitor asked if the GAL would support a long-term placement in a location that better suited the mother. The GAL said she did not think a supervision order would be fitting as it wasn’t “protective enough for the children”.
The judge proposed that, if a foster placement became available, the matter could be re-entered before the court on notice to the parents and the GAL. The judge then asked if a placement came up if there was a chance it could be lost due to the matter having to be re-entered before the court. The GAL said there was no way of knowing that.
The solicitor for the CFA informed the court that there was a meeting about a potential placement that week and they were afraid it would be lost. The GAL said it was important that the mother was on board with any placement and the transitional period take place over a number of weeks.
The judge suggested a series of overnights which would allow a slow transition and expressed the view that the current placement situation was a “novel idea”. The GAL supported the judge’s suggestion that the court be informed of the move to a foster placement and did not foresee it delaying anything.
The solicitor for the CFA resisted the proposition of re-entering the matter before the court. The judge asked the GAL if she would have any difficulty with the social workers initiating the transition to placement if it was suitable for the children. The GAL replied that she would not have any difficulty with this. The judge suggested that if a foster placement was identified that the full transition wouldn’t be finalised pending the matter coming before the court.
Social Worker Team Leader
The solicitor for the CFA asked the team leader what she thought of what was proposed by the judge. The team leader expressed concern around the timeline as there was a meeting that week with a foster agency for the infant which would have to be approved shortly afterwards by the committee. The team leader said the information could be shared with the mother’s solicitor, the father and the GAL and they could plan a suitable transition plan. She said she did not want to lose the placement because they had to come before the court.
The judge asked the team leader if there was any issue with the placement being taken up but not finalised until it came before the court. The team leader replied: “I have no issue with that”. The team leader said the GAL could attend any meeting around the placement to discuss what was suitable for the children.
The mother’s solicitor informed the court this was the first they had heard of a placement meeting that week. The team leader said that they had not informed the mother as the placement for the infant was not secured yet. The judge said that she was satisfied that the threshold was met for the extension of the interim care order and granted it for 28 days. She also gave a For Mention date before the end of 28 days for an update in relation to the placements. The judge indicated that she wished to direct that the children were not to be moved from the placement in the next two weeks but the solicitor for the CFA proposed that this be dealt with by way of an undertaking and the judge agreed.