A District Court judge in a provincial city granted an interim care order for 23 days in respect of a young girl of primary school age who had been in the care of her mother and who had previously been the subject of a supervision order. The application was contested by both of the child’s parents, but the father said if the order were made he proposed his sister as foster carer. Both parents were in court and were represented separately. A guardian ad litem (GAL) had not been appointed to the child at the time of the hearing, but was on its conclusion.
The matter had been before the judge earlier that month when concerns had been raised and the court had granted the supervision order. However, the solicitor for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) told the court that those concerns had increased. He said that while the application was being contested by both parents, the father was not fully opposing the application. He was proposing, should an interim care order be granted, that his sister would be the child’s carer. His sister was present in court. The CFA’s solicitor told the court that a long-term access order for the father was in place and that the child’s maternal aunt was the liaison person for the access.
He said that the mother did not agree that the breaches of the supervision order were at the level suggested by the CFA. She was also concerned was that if an interim care order were granted that day, then the child would be placed in general foster care until such time as the aunt had been assessed.
As the social worker’s report included information about referrals made by gardaí and other third parties, the judge told the social worker that her evidence was to be confined to matters that were not hearsay.
Social worker’s evidence
The allocated social worker said that the family had come to the attention of the CFA about seven years earlier as a result of a number of referrals regarding an older son, who was in care. She said that there had been 10 referrals in the current year alone, and about 24 referrals overall, some relating to domestic violence incidents and others relating to the older teenage son.
The judge refused to admit some of these referrals on the basis of hearsay, but the judge allowed the social worker to give evidence regarding the school’s referrals which showed ongoing neglect of the young girl.
The social worker said that there had been consistent referrals that year regarding the young girl, mostly coming from her school. In addition, there had been concerns about drug use in the vicinity of the mother’s house. This was disputed by the mother. The judge allowed some of this evidence to be admitted as the social worker had spoken directly to the mother about these issues.
The local gardaí had visited the house on several occasions. The mother’s solicitor had concerns about what the gardaí had said at such visits as the mother disputed the allegations regarding the drug use and the concerns regarding the young girl.
The CFA’s solicitor told the judge that a well-known criminal with some 500 recorded convictions also lived in the home as the mother’s partner. There had also been reports of various other people going to the home including an anonymous report of another adult, who was also well known to the gardaí, going there.
The social worker said that the young girl had told her that she felt unsafe. She said that the supervision order had been granted as there had been no engagement by the mother with the social work department.
She had visited the young girl’s home to speak with her mother 10 days earlier. Many efforts had been made to contact the mother prior to that. The social worker had met the young girl at her school. The young girl had told the social worker about an incident in which a criminal was in her home drunk and hitting her mother. She said that the girl was a chatty child and had been happy to meet with her. The girl had told her that a safe house would be one that had her, her brother, her step-dad and her cat.
She also told the social worker that she had gone to the house of a friend of her step-dad. However, she had felt unsafe in this house as another man, who had been visiting this house, had followed her around from room to room, though he had not done anything to her. She said that she also did not feel safe when one of her mother’s female friends visited. She said that this woman had acted and looked weird. The woman had been in her home during the daytime and at night. She spoke positively about going to her aunt’s house.
The social worker had met with the girl’s mother following this visit. The mother had denied any of the concerns raised. She did not accept that anything untoward was going on. The social worker then met with the young girl at the school six days after her first visit. However, on this occasion it was clear that the girl had not wanted to meet or speak with her. She had been angry and had thought that the social worker had told her mother about their conversation and in particular that she liked being in her aunt’s house. She had been worried about getting into trouble.
The social worker said that she had had difficulties contacting the mother. She had three different numbers for her. She had spoken with the mother about safety planning and setting up a safety network but the mother had not accepted any of the social worker’s concerns. One of the mother’s friends had just recently agreed to be part of the mother’s safety network. This person told the social worker that she had no worries or concerns about the young girl and thought she was safe.
The mother believed that the young girl was being told what to say by the social worker. The mother had denied that drug users were coming to her home or that there was any drug use in the home. The social worker said that it would not be possible to put any safety plan in place as long as the mother refused to accept any of the issues being raised.
The judge said that there was no evidence before her from the school. She refused to entertain any allegations that had been made by the mother’s older son who was already in care.
The social worker told the judge that in her professional opinion, the interim care order was necessary and proportionate. She had ongoing concerns, which were heightened by the fact that the young girl was not attending school as the school year had finished.
The judge said that she wanted the court record to show that she was only considering the direct evidence of the social worker and was not taking into account any hearsay evidence related to the school or the gardaí that might have slipped in to the social worker’s account.
Social worker’s cross examination
The social worker was cross examined by the mother’s barrister. She said that the supervision order had had a number of conditions. One of these was that the social worker would be able to meet with the young girl when required. The social worker confirmed this to be the case and agreed with the barrister that while this had previously been an issue, it was no longer the case. However, she added that she was concerned that the young girl was being conditioned.
Another condition was that the social worker could visit the family home. She agreed that she had made an unannounced visit to the family home some weeks before and had not been prevented from entering. She accepted that she did not have concerns about the condition of the home. She had not met with the young girl at this visit as it was during schooltime.
She said that the mother had presented to her as engaged, but defensive and in denial. She did not know if there had been anyone else present in the home, she had not seen anyone. She said that the purpose of the visit had been to make contact with the mother and to begin engaging with her in the context of the supervision order.
The social worker said that she had met the young girl at the school six days after that home visit. She had gone to the home again on that day around noon time but the mother had not been there. She tried to contact the mother by phone but she had received no answer. The mother’s barrister said that the mother had been at a meeting that day.
The barrister asked the social worker why she had come back to court seeking an interim care order despite having had engagement with the mother only 15 days previously. The social worker replied that it was because of what the young girl had told her and because of the referrals by the gardaí and the school. The judge commented that these referrals were not in evidence before the court and she was ignoring them.
The barrister said that all of the referrals that the social worker had mentioned predated the supervision order. He asked if it was a condition of the supervision order that the mother answer the social worker’s phone calls or that there would be unannounced visits to the family home. The social worker said that no, these were not conditions in the supervision order.
The barrister asked the social worker what evidence she had that the conditions of the supervision order had been breached. The social worker said that the evidence she was relying on related to the young girl’s concerns that she was not safe at home. She said that the young girl was worried about a friend of her step-father who lived around the corner from her home. The young girl had told her that this man had followed her into her room. She had been afraid that he might hurt her, although he had not actually hurt her.
The mother’s barrister said that this man was a neighbour who lived two doors away. The social worker said that the young girl had told her that this neighbour had come into her room. She said that the young girl also did not feel safe around a friend of her mother’s. The young girl had told her that this woman had acted and looked weird. This was also a concern.
The social worker was concerned that there was a lack of supervision while the young girl was in the house with other adults. She said that the young girl felt worried and these were current worries. She was concerned that these people were in the house when the mother was not present. She said that the girl had made no reference to her father as a person who was unsafe, “she didn’t engage on this at all with me.”
Second social worker
A second social worker gave evidence to the court about conversations she had had with the young girl at her school.
She had not known her prior to that. She said that the child had been open to the conversation, but hesitant. They had discussed who was living in her house and also who had visited the house. They had explored some of strengths and worries that she had.
The girl had told her about the house, her mother, her step-father and her cat and doll. She had also spoken about her cousin, whom she liked. She told the social worker that she had enjoyed her communion day, it had been a happy day. She said that her mother had told her not to speak about what had happened after the communion party, when her mother had been assaulted by a man. The girl had seen this man threaten to break the windows of the house. She said that this man had arrived at the house drunk. No one had helped her to stay safe. The gardaí had been called at around 3 a.m. Her step-father had protected her mother.
The girl said that she was worried about this man coming back to the house. He had lived in the house previously but she did not know when precisely. She said that she worried for her mother who had kidney stones and suffered from a lot of pain for which she took medicine.
She said that sometimes other children came to the house with their parents. She said that her mother and step-father would check on her when she was in her bedroom, but she also spoke about an occasion in which two other children had come into her room during the night.
She said that she did not see her father. She did not want to see him as he had been violent towards her mother. She said that when she was three years old she had been in the car with her father and she had hit her face off of the dashboard.
Regarding things that she enjoyed, she told the social worker about going shopping with her mother, that she enjoyed school, dance and playing hurling. She was starting dancing class. She spoke briefly about her paternal aunt. She told the social worker that she wanted to be a doctor or garda when she grew up. She said that if her mother was happier, then her troubles would be gone.
She named the man who had followed her around the house and into her room. She also named two other young girls that came to visit her in her home with their father. She said that when this man had been in her house, he had walked funny and she thought that he had been drinking.
The mother’s barrister cross examined this social worker on her evidence. She confirmed that she had had a good rapport with the girl.
The social worker had not thought the incident of the two children coming into the girl’s room amounted to a safety issue initially, but she became concerned when the girl mentioned their father (who she thought had been drunk).
The father’s solicitor asked the social worker if the girl had raised any worries about her paternal aunt or grandmother. The social worker said that she had spoken positively about the aunt and grandmother and had asked to go on a sleepover. However, that had not happened and she was not aware if it had happened previously.
Mother’s evidence
The girl’s mother first described what had happened after the communion party. She said that there had been a small family argument and at that time only her immediate family had been present.
She said the man and his partner had called to the house. She had not wanted them to come into the house and had called for a taxi and had asked them to leave. She said that this was around two or three o’clock in the morning. The child had been asleep upstairs. When asked if the young girl had seen this man falling down the stairs, she said that the man had fallen backwards down the stairs. He had not hit her but she had been trying to get him to leave. This was what the young girl would have seen. She confirmed that this man had not been to the house since.
The mother also confirmed that she was engaged with a housing association that had a right to access the house without permission. She confirmed that this housing association had not had cause to address any issues regarding anti-social behaviours at the house.
In relation to her daughter, she agreed that the relationship with her paternal aunt was going well. The court had previously ordered two hours of access with them once a month in a public place. She said that the access arrangements had changed because the young girl had wanted to engage with her cousins more often. Access was now bi-monthly and included play dates and a few overnight stays. She agreed that the young girl’s school attendance had also improved. The only issue had been an “unusual” half day when her daughter had not been picked up. The school had had to ring the gardaí, but she had been at home at the time.
The father’s solicitor asked the mother about the young girl’s access arrangements with his family. The mother agreed that the amount of access had increased gradually and that the young girl spoke well of her paternal aunt and grandmother. However, recently the young girl had not wanted to attend the assess visits. She said that the girl had felt that she was being questioned constantly and she was becoming frustrated with this.
The solicitor said that the aunt had told him that the young girl had become anxious during sleepovers. The mother replied that the young girl did not want to go to the access visits at the moment. However, she did not dispute that the young girl did not have any concerns at her aunt’s.
The CFA’s solicitor asked the mother why she had told the young girl not to talk to the social worker. She replied that the young girl had been terrified of the social worker who had been banging her hands on the table.
In relation to the communion incident, she said that she had been asleep in bed when the man called to the house with his partner. He was drunk. She had not wanted to wake the neighbours, so she had brought them both into the house while she had called a taxi. She said that the man had never lived in the house and that the young girl had been wrong about this.
The CFA’s solicitor asked the mother if she was aware that this man had been attacked with a machete in the city previously. The mother said that she had not known about this. She said that she had only been with her current partner for the previous four months and that this was the first time she had heard about the incident. She said that her current partner was a friend of this man.
She said that she had met her partner through Facebook. The solicitor asked her if she was aware that her partner had over 500 convictions. The mother replied that she had had “nothing to do with that”. She said that she was aware that he had had convictions for drug dealing 15 years earlier, but she was not aware of anything to do with the machete incident. She denied again that the man who had entered her house had hit her and threatened her and that her partner had had to protect her. She said: “This did not happen. I have footage on my phone.” She did not know why the young girl had said what she did.
The CFA’s solicitor asked the mother about numerous referrals alleging that many people were coming to the house, some of whom were known drug dealers, and that drugs were being sold from house. She said that there were no drugs, “I’m willing to do drug tests.”
With regards to the young girl’s school attendance, she said that this had only occurred once recently. She said that while there had been previous issues, there were no recent reports of poor attendance.
The CFA’s solicitor said that the school had been concerned about the girl’s presentation and that she may have had headlice. The mother replied: “My child is always well turned out. She loves school now.” The solicitor asked her why the girl had missed 59 days of school during the previous year. The mother said that it had been difficult to get her to go to school then.
The CFA’s solicitor asked the mother about the neighbour. He said that the girl was afraid that he might hurt her and asked the mother why the young girl would say that. The mother replied that the girl had told her that she had never said that to the social worker. She said that the incident with the neighbour going into the girl’s room had never happened and that it would not have been allowed to happen.
Asked why she had three phone numbers, she said that there had been an error with her sim card, one of the phones was old and she had a temporary phone number.
The CFA’s solicitor told the mother that she had heard the evidence of the social worker who was very concerned. The mother said that she understood the concerns. The solicitor said that her relationship was with a man who had over 500 convictions, he lived in the young girl’s home and she called him her step-dad. The mother said that her partner had done no harm to the young girl, that he had been a dad to her. She said that she could end the relationship with her current partner, “my child comes first.”
She told her own barrister that her partner had told her about some of his convictions, one of which for drugs had been 15 years before. She said she had ended her relationship with him. She said that the man who had come to the house (after the communion party) had been a friend of her ex-partner and that that man had not been to the house since.
The CFA’s solicitor challenged the mother that she had said, under oath, that she was willing to end the relationship with her partner, but she had also said, under oath, that she had told the social worker three days previously that she had ended the relationship already.
The social worker, who was still under oath, confirmed to the court that she had spoken to the mother three days previously only about the young girl. She also said that the partner was in the house two or three night as week. She said that she was in a position to provide evidence regarding the extent of the conversation.
Mother’s friend
A friend of the mother’s who had been nominated to the CFA to be a member of the mother’s safety network, told the court that she worked and that she had children of her own, boys and a girl.
She said that she had spoken with the social worker and she had confirmed to her that she would be available to be part of the mother’s safety network. She said that she would be available if the child needed to be cared for. She said that she did not think that the young girl was in danger.
She said that the young girl was the nicest, sweetest child. Her own daughter loved her. She knew her when she had been about two or three years of age. She had been out of contact after that and was only back in contact recently. The young girl had come down to her house during the previous week.
She understood what was involved in being part of the safety network and that the role might mean that she would have to take care of the young girl even if that was something that the mother did not want. She said that she did not want the young girl to be separated from her mother, but that if an order was made, she would check on the child. When asked if she would be neutral enough to ring the CFA if she thought that the young girl might be at risk, she replied that she’d be the first to report it.
The CFA’s solicitor summarised his position for the judge. He said that the family had been known to the CFA for approximately seven years. The young girl’s attendance at school was poor, there were a lot of reports by gardaí and others that were concerning. He said that what the CFA had found out had only added to their concerns. He was also concerned that the young girl was not currently attending school as it was the holidays.
The mother’s barrister argued that the application for an interim care order was premature as an assessment of the supervision order was not yet before the court. She did not believe that the threshold for granting an interim care order for the young girl had been met by the CFA.
The father’s solicitor told the court that the father had ongoing concerns and had engaged with the CFA. He was not putting himself forward to care for the girl as he was aware of his previous behaviours. The young girl’s welfare was his priority and that was why he was proposing his sister to be her carer.
The judge emphasised again that she was making her decision on the basis of the social workers’ evidence only and that she was not considering any hearsay evidence from the gardaí or other sources. She said that she could not ignore the fact that a supervision order had already been granted. She said she did not think that much of the mother’s evidence was credible and that in fact some of her evidence was incredible.
She said that she was satisfied that the threshold for granting an interim care order had been reached and that it was in the best interests of the child. She granted the order for a period of just under four weeks, 23 days.
She directed that a GAL be appointed for the young girl and agreed to the CFA’s application to waive consent in the event that the young girl required any medical treatment.
There was no application regarding access.