A judge in Dublin District Court granted an interim care order for a teenager whose mother was in prison and who had been placed in voluntary care with his aunt when he was three. This had now broken down. His mother consented to the order.
The child’s allocated social worker told the court that the child was turning in his early teens. She said the CFA had been involved in the child’s life for some time. The child was removed from his mother’s care when he was three and he was placed with his aunt. He had “significant loss and significant trauma”.
She said his mother had been incarcerated in 2023 and his relationship with his aunt had deteriorated in recent years. The social worker said the child’s aunt loved him very much and had taken good care of him. However, she said that the strained relationship, stemming from the child’s difficult behaviour, had created a toxic atmosphere which was negatively impacting the child.
The social worker said the child’s mother and aunt had worked well with her. She said that the initial voluntary care arrangement had been only for two weeks and it was presented by the aunt as temporary but it became apparent that in her view a longer-term care order was needed to provide the child with the support necessary to change his behaviour. She said the child needed “clear direction”.
The social worker said that the child had initially been placed in a Special Emergency Arrangement (SEA). She said he struggled in this placement and his school attendance was poor. He had since moved into a registered care placement and his attendance had improved. She said he was brought to school every day and he was on a reduced timetable. He was delayed academically and struggled with rudimentary tasks like telling the time and handwriting but the school was conscious of this and was giving him individual support.
He was attending specialist youth drug treatment appointments to address his substance misuse. She said there was “a long way to go”.
The social worker told the court that a 2018 a CAMHS assessment indicated the child may have ADHD and ODD. The social worker conceded that the assessment was quite outdated, but it aligned with her experience. She said the child had been referred to CAMHS more recently, but he had been rejected because of his drug use. She said he had been referred to ACTS and this would provide a “global overview” of his therapeutic needs.
The social worker told the court that the child has been involved in anti-social behaviour and drug use. She clarified that the child had not received a caution or a referral to the Gardai’s Juvenile Liaison Office. She said that material related to the consumption and sale of drugs was found on the child’s phone. The social worker said the child did not currently have a phone.
The solicitor for the aunt asked if the CFA would consider providing the child with an old-fashioned phone without internet access. The social worker said the CFA could look into this, but significant supervision would be required.
The social worker told the court that the child was using time allocated for being with his family to engage in anti-social behaviour in the community. He had recently been involved in a road traffic accident involving an e-scooter. She said the child needed the “oversight of the court”.
The social worker agreed with the solicitor for the aunt that the child’s aunt had an “old-fashioned” view of parenting and that the aunt’s upset at the child’s drug use was a root cause of the conflict between her and the child.
Asked by the aunt’s solicitor, the social worker said that she did believe there was a pathway to reunification with her, but it would be a difficult and protracted process.
The judge thanked the social worker for her detailed report which she said was of great assistance in helping her understand this complicated case. She also commended the quality of her evidence and said that her concerns were expressed “eloquently”. She also said that the child’s aunt needed to be commended for the love and care she had provided to the child but despite her efforts more structure was needed to ensure the child “does not go down the wrong path”. She said the child was subject to negative pressures from the community and in her view his best interests were served by the making of an interim care order.