The Child and Family Agency (CFA) sought a fourth extension to an interim care order for an infant. There had been a long history of involvement by the social work department with this family in relation to previous children, all of whom were in care.
The mother was present in court with her barrister and an independent advocate. The father did not attend court as he attended an access visit with an older child already in care. The mother was contesting the application, and asserted that Tusla were neglecting the infant and that she would be able to care for it better.
The social work team leader gave evidence, setting out that this was an application for a fourth extension of the interim care order. The social work team leader stated in evidence that the threshold continued to be met and that continuing the order was in the best interests of the child.
The social work team leader gave an update on the child’s placement and informed the court that the infant was placed with two siblings.
The social work team leader stated that there had been a parenting capacity assessment 12 months previously which recommended psychotherapeutic supports for the infant’s mother and stated that this service was about to start. A local community family support services was also available, and it was stated that they would contact the mother to offer services.
The social work team leader confirmed that granting the order was proportionate, necessary and in the best interests of the child.
The mother’s barrister was put to the social work team leader that the mother was looking for medical reports and medical updates on the child, to which she was entitled, but these had not yet been provided. The social work team leader agreed to provide the mother with this information. The mother’s barrister asked about the mother’s wish to increase access. The social work team leader stated that a private security firm was required when access is happening and that any increase in access would depend on their availability, but agreed they could examine the issue.
The mother’s barrister stated that the local community family support service had to date never contacted the family and they had been looking since the previous August to meet with the service. The social workers were asked to make efforts to get the service to engage with the family.
The respondent mother gave evidence stating the case had been going on now for three months and she was very upset. The mother stated that her infant child had come to access with severe nappy rash, and described the child as “completely scalded down below, raw red”. The mother stated: “I said it numerous times to social workers, ;they say creams are being prescribed, but nothing has changed”. The mother then stated “I wasn’t told that my child was taken into hospital until six days after he went in”, and went on to say that she wanted the child returned to her as she had everything that was needed for child.
The judge asked the mother: “Do you think you have capacity to take on this child?” The mother complained that she had asked for six months to be provided with a parenting course and with psychotherapy but that this had only begun to be made available.
The mother stated her frustration that the social worker had done nothing to fix things for her or to protect her child, stating her belief that social workers had neglected the child. The mother stated that the infant was placed with the same foster carer that had scalded a previous child of hers. A medical report had been requested from the hospital but not yet provided. The mother told the court that “the CFA don’t cooperate with me, they never answer the phone, a medical report was meant to be given to be before today and still not given me.”
The judge asked for the social work team leader to return to the witness box to answer further questions. The social worker explained that there was severe nappy rash that would flair up at times but this was actively treated in co-operation with the GP, and that on previous occasions they had informed the court in relation to this. The judge asked: “Why is this not being dealt with, and why is the mother is not getting information?”
The social work team leader asserted that the rash was managed by medical professionals and was not something to be unduly concerned by.
The judge asked for the social work team leader’s view of what would happen if the child was returned that day. The social work team leader explained that there was a long history with this family, there were historical parenting capacity assessments already completed showing challenges and there were lots of services involved over the years. The social work team leader stated that reunification was unlikely to be possible.
The court extended the interim care order, telling the mother that the extension was “not to punish you, but about your child’s best interests.” The Judge encouraged her to deal with her issues to facilitate reunification.