A judge in a District Court in a rural town granted an interim care order for a child of primary school age who, it was alleged, had experienced significant neglect with suspicions of sexual abuse.
By way of housekeeping the father’s name was amended on the court documentation. The father was accompanied by his brother to give him support. The mother was estranged and living outside the jurisdiction and was not represented. The father consented to the interim care order.
The court was told that there had been a number of serious referrals from the principal of the school, and the court was told that the father was accepting the evidence but not the truth of it.
The social worker was called to give evidence and she confirmed that the report prepared for court was true and accurate. She told the court she had known the family since 2025 and she outlined her current concerns.
She said intensive work had been carried out since early 2026 and a number of referrals had been made by parents of other children in the child’s school.
The main concern was in relation to the neglect of the child’s needs. She said a number of services had been offered but they had not been taken up. The concerns were educational neglect, coercion of the child, non-engagement with professionals and non-attendance at appointments.
She said there were concerns over sexualized behaviours and there had been previous attempts to engage with the father. She said the child had had a traumatic childhood and needed therapies and to be in a stable placement in order to obtain those therapies.
She said a referral had gone into CAHMS and a referral had also been received from CAHMS regarding child protection concerns and instability. There was a NEPS assessment to be carried out regarding the lack of attendance at school.
In brief the social worker’s concerns were (a) mental health (b) sexualised behaviour (c) basic care needs and (d) lack of professional engagement. She said the child needed a full paediatric assessment. The court appointed a guardian ad litem for the child.
The barrister for the father said that his client was aware that the child needed help and he wanted an assessment completed as soon as possible. The barrister also requested that an advocate be appointed for the father.
The judge indicated to the barrister that she herself had acted for the father previously and therefore she would not be in a position to hear the case on a further occasion.
The principal of the national school was called to give evidence. He said that the child was in fourth class and was old for his class as he had been old starting primary school, he had started junior infants at a late stage. He said there were a significant number of attendance issues, the child had been absent for 62 days that year.
This was in addition to him attending late, arriving at 11.30 in the morning and leaving around 1.30 or 2.00 in the afternoon. He said that an additional 27 days had been missed due to lateness.
The judge asked whether the child could read and write and the principal said he could barely read and write. The principal speculated that the child’s IQ was low due to lack of attendance at school. He said a number of referrals had been made.
He said, as the designated liaison person for the school, he had made a number of referrals in relation to the child’s sexualised comments, his behaviour and aggression. He gave evidence that on one occasion a log had been aimed at another child. He said the child had also been simulating sexualised behaviour including gestures with his hands and sounds and in the toilets.
The principal said he had met with the father but the father was heightened, the child did not turn up for school the next day and the principal asked that welfare checks be carried out by the CFA and the Gardai.
He said the child had made a number of sexual comments suggesting that he had had sex with his father and he had used sexualised language to other children and their families.
The principal said the child had been subjected to a recent suspension for two days, which the principal could enforce. However, the board of management had had to enforce other periods of suspension up to a 10-day suspension. The principal said that the child was approaching the expulsion threshold. He said he had had ongoing talks with the father on an ad hoc basis and the principal wanted the best for the child but he queried the father’s capacity and he said that the lateness of the child attending school might be an indication of lack of capacity.
He said there had been no material change. He had encouraged the father to engage in external services and he said all of the staff at the school wanted what was best for the child. He said the school had been working one-on-one with him. He said it was a school that was involved in an anti-bullying campaign, but in recent times on three different occasions the child had engaged in bullying.
The principal said he had met with the father on previous occasions but nothing had changed. He said that the needs of the child were not currently being met and the board was currently getting advice from their insurers regarding an expulsion, which was on the cards.
The judge said things might improve if there was a period of stability, she accepted that the threshold was met and granted an interim care order to the following month and appointed the guardian ad litem.
She said access should be kept under review and be at the discretion of the social worker. She noted that there was consent to the initial interim care order for one month.