An interim care order was granted for two children who had been in voluntary care. The father, who was represented by a solicitor, consented to the order.
It was agreed between the parties that the application could move on foot of the affidavit of the social worker. The court was told that a section 12 (emergency care order) had been invoked initially in 2020 and that the children had been placed in a relative foster care voluntary arrangement. A section 47 application was brought to dispense with the father’s consent for a passport. Though the father had consented, the passport office was not accepting his consent. The father’s solicitor confirmed that the father was a legal guardian and that the mother was deceased.
The father’s solicitor said that access was key for his client and that his client wanted access to increase. The CFA solicitor indicated that access had been decreased due to inconsistent attendance by the father.
The solicitor for the GAL indicated that both an access plan and therapy plans needed to be written down and provided.
The judge granted the interim care order for the two children, who had been in voluntary care for a number of years. He acknowledged the presence of the father in court and his consent to the interim care order and that access had been flagged as an issue. He said the CFA should review the access plan and the therapy plan and both should be provided to GAL’s solicitor. In relation to the passport application, he said it was ridiculous that that when the father had signed the passport form the passport office was refusing to accept it. He granted the section 47 application in relation to the passports.