An interim care order was granted for two young girls to go into the care of their half-sister, their father’s older daughter, who had been assessed as a suitable foster-carer. A supervision order had been granted previously, but the Child and Family Agency said it was not being complied with.
The father, who was Irish, had been produced from prison where he was serving a sentence for sex abuse of minors and his lawyer said he was consenting to the interim care order. The mother, from Africa, was accompanied by an advocate and was legally represented and in court. She opposed the application.
When the case came before Dublin District Court on the first day counsel for the mother objected and sought an adjournment on the basis of fair procedures, saying that they understood that the application before the court was a review of the supervision order and not an initial interim care order.
Counsel for the CFA said they would call eight or nine witnesses and were ready to proceed. Following discussions between the lawyers, no agreement was reached on proceeding and the case was adjourned.
When the case resumed the court heard that the father had provided a lot of care to the girls, but, by his own admission, should not have been left alone with them. It was not stated whether his conviction related to these girls, the subject of this application.
The judge said: “I ask that the practitioners work together, in the best interests of the children”, and added that she wanted to “hear clearly the voice of the parents”. She said: “This is their lives, not just a job, as it is for practitioners involved. We have to be mindful that this is very disturbing for the parents.” The barrister for the mother acknowledged that he fully appreciated the need for collegiality but added that his instructions were to “fully fight” this application.
The judge raised a preliminary question as to whether the father had taken a DNA test. It had been recorded on the court file that he had denied parentage of one of the girls. His counsel confirmed that he had since acknowledged parentage of the child. Counsel for the CFA said her client would prefer to have a DNA test done, “to remove ambiguity”. The father agreed to this.
Garda witness
A member of An Garda Síochána described to the court a violent assault on the mother by her partner (not the father in the case), which had occurred in public. The man had been arrested, later pleaded guilty to the charges, and has been placed on a 12-month peace bond.
The mother had been taken to the Garda station highly intoxicated where she was seen by the Garda doctor on call and referred to hospital for further treatment, but she did not attend. Gardaí from the domestic violence unit advised her on how to get a protection order. The court heard that it was believed that the couple were still in a relationship at the time of this court application, and the children stayed at the violent man’s home when the mother spent time there. The Garda agreed with the mother’s counsel that, when intoxicated, she was vulnerable and in need of support, such as a protection order.
Representative of County Council Housing Department
A representative of the council housing department said the mother had been placed in private emergency accommodation, but this type of accommodation was not staffed and it became apparent that the mother was not suited to it. She had been issued with a warning due to noise levels and the children being left alone. She was then placed in supported temporary accommodation, which was staffed. In one such placement, she was recorded as having been absent for 89 out of 141 days, during which time the girls were left alone with their father. She was then removed from that placement.
On the recommendation of the CFA, the county council placed the family in a family hub. It was considered a flagship accommodation, with 24-hour staffing and support, under the auspices of the Peter McVerry Trust. However, the mother did not adhere to the safety plan agreed with the CFA, which ultimately resulted in her and the girls losing their placement at that hub.
The mother’s barrister handed into court a letter from her keyworker at the hub, where the family had lived for nearly a year. This said that the mother kept her “suite to a high standard”, was “respectful at all times”, fed the children who presented as “neat and tidy”, there were no complaints from other occupants, she was “proactive with communicating with staff when she needed support”, and always paid her rent on time. The council representative said that this was only the case when the mother was there, the root cause for the family’s eviction was non-occupancy.
Social Worker 1
A social worker who had worked with the family spoke of “sporadic contact”, missed meetings and unanswered/unreturned calls. However, the social worker had managed to speak with the children, who had expressed a wish to live with their half-sister. Counsel for the mother objected, he said that the CFA had not made a section 23 application, allowing for statements from a child to be admissible as evidence. Counsel for the CFA said the social worker was entitled to express the wishes stated by the children, that a section 23 application related to facts, not “wishes or feelings” of a child.
The social worker said the youngest child presented as “an anxious child, who never knows what her day will look like.” She said the older child presented as more confident and independent, while being protective of her sister. The social worker’s concerns for the girls were them having absolutely no routine or structure. “We never knew where they were.”
They had been left with various people, despite the mother having been advised that at that age they primarily needed to be with her. When the duty social worker broached the issue of the child sexual abuse allegations the mother did not respond and continued to leave the girls on their own with their father.
The duty social worker described how a child protection case conference (CPCC) was held, after which the girls were placed on the child protection notification system (CPNS) under the category of “at risk”. She explained that the purpose of the CPCC was to come up with a safety plan, “so that things would improve and it would be very clear what needed to be done”. The mother had attended the CPCC and agreed that the children needed to be in school more, but did not respond to other concerns raised. A condition of the agreed safety plan was that the family was to stay at the hub Monday to Friday and for three out of every four weekends.
The judge asked: “What supports did you provide Mum at that time?” The duty social worker replied that an ability to protect assessment was carried out in order to identify gaps and to put in place relevant supports. “Words and Pictures” work was done with the girls, to help them understand their circumstances. The social worker said it is “an honest account, in age-appropriate language.”
The girls were to go to their adult half-sister at weekends. “This happened and they enjoyed it.” “Did you feel the safety plan was followed?” the judge asked. “No, not during my involvement”, answered the duty social worker.
Asked if the mother was vulnerable, the duty social worker said that, in her opinion, she was “an unusual person, adept at deflecting questions. Yes, there are absolutely vulnerabilities there; she’s not from here and she’s with someone with very serious convictions.”
Social Worker 2
A second social worker, currently working with the family, described how she had met the mother and the girls at the hub, where she had stressed the importance of school attendance. “She talked non-stop and I often did not get a chance to state my concerns.” The social worker was satisfied that there was no language barrier.
She had explained to the mother the detrimental effect on the youngest girl of being unable to read or write, and how the child was presenting as “hyper vigilant and alert”, conscious that her friends could do the school work but she could not. An educational and psychological assessment and speech and language assessment were completed on the younger child, and she was placed on a waiting list for speech and language therapy. The social worker spoke of how most of the contacts regarding these assessments were with the father and the mother had to be prompted do what was required.
The social worker said school was about socialisation as well as education. Sporadic and late attendance made it very difficult for the girls to settle, while “always playing catch up”. The girls had missed the first four weeks of the current school year because, after losing the hub placement, they went to stay with their half-sister, which was too far from their school. When it was suggested that they could enrol in a school nearer to their half-sister, the mother abruptly removed them from her care, and had since been living with them in very cramped accommodation with her adult child and their family.
The social worker described the girls’ situation as living in chaos, with the only stability being with their half-sister. She said that the constant movement and lack of structure or routine meant that the children did not feel safe or secure in their environment. Some improvement was seen when the mother had enrolled the children in swimming and football, however there was concern that a male friend of hers had brought the girls swimming alone.
The social worker had tried to get the mother to engage with a service called “My Project”, which provided emotional support for children at risk. Eight appointments were offered, four were attended.
Becoming emotional, the social worker described discussing their situation with the girls as one of her toughest days as a social worker. She said that the girls felt that “Daddy wasn’t there,” they had been told that he had gone to work in England, rather than that he was in prison. The social worker said that the girls were inconsolable, but she acknowledged that their mother had comforted them. The social worker said that the girls needed at least weekly sessions of long-term therapeutic supports.
The mother was offered a psychological assessment but declined it and was advised to seek counselling through her GP, but had not done so, to the best of the social worker’s knowledge. She also declined referral to domestic violence services
The sequence of steps that had led to this court application were the child protection case conference resulting in the children being placed on the child protection notification system and the creation of a safety plan. Due to non-adherence to the safety plan, the court granted a supervision order. There had been brief progress but overall things had not changed, leading the CFA to bring the interim care order application.
A parenting capacity assessment was carried out and was completed in a single day, over a seven-hour period with breaks. The main topics discussed with the mother were housing, the girls’ care arrangements, safety concerns and non-engagement.
The mother’s counsel said that the mother did not always understand what the social workers expected of her. He cited a GAL report which stated: “I wonder if Mum has her own cognitive or mental health challenges.” The lawyer put it to the social worker that “this case was crying out for an advocate or someone from The New Communities Partnership (NCP).” He explained that the NCP is a “relatively common service, which advocates for parties from a migrant background.”
The social worker said she had not heard of that service and “in hindsight, perhaps that should have happened.” He put it to the social worker that the fact that the three placements offered to the mother, after being removed from the hub, were too far from the girls’ school, “was a legitimate reason for declining the placements”. The social worker did not agree; she said that the most important piece is a stable home, “then school”. Most of the time the safety plan was not adhered to and resulted in hub staff having to contact the Gardaí.
The social worker acknowledged that, as there were no legal proceedings in place when the parenting capacity assessment was carried out, there was no joint letter of referral agreeing the terms of reference.
The mother’s lawyer asked: “Were the consequences of the PCA discussed with Mum? At any point before the assessment, was it suggested to Mum that it could result in an application being made to court to remove the children from her?” The social worker replied: “No, it was not.” One of the assessor’s seven recommendations was that “Mum should engage in a programme of attachment-based parenting to improve her overall parenting.”
Counsel: “Has one been offered to her?”.
Social worker: “No.”
Counsel: “Looking back over the past 10 months, should there have been?”
Social worker: “Yes.”
Asked if the mother’s habit of talking over the social worker should have been interpreted as a capacity or mental health issue, the social worker replied: “I think she has always understood, and it is a tactic of deflection to avoid working with me.”
Asked whether a letter written by a hub keyworker, which stated that the mother always paid her rent on time, the children played well with others, and there were no complaints, demonstrated that the mother was able to maintain good relationships with professionals, the social worker replied: “When she wants to, she can.” She accepted there had been no anti-social issues in the hub.
The father’s counsel stated that he wanted the girls to live with his daughter (their half-sister) and he accepted that they should not have been left alone with him
The judge asked the social worker what supports would be offered the mother if the interim care order was not granted, and the social worker said she would have to consult with her team leader. Asked what would happen if it was granted, she replied that the social work department wanted the mother to have ongoing access and that they would support her as much as possible.
Head of Family Services at the Peter McVerry Trust
The Head of Family Services for the Peter McVerry Trust said the mother’s placement had broken down due to occupancy levels. The service had to report occupancy numbers to the Dublin Region Homeless Executive (DRHE) and to the local authority. Due to absences of 163 days out of 313 the mother was placed on a placement sustainment agreement, which supported families in danger of losing their placement. However, the mother’s occupancy did not improve. At the end of a 59-day period when she had been absent for 21 days, the mother was issued with a final warning for “continued non-occupancy”. There had been no child protection concerns.
The witness summarised that there were persistent absences, late returns, and breaches of the CFA’s safety plan, meaning the Gardai had to be called out. “I was satisfied that she understood she was to be back at a certain time.”
The mother’s counsel put it to the witness that occupancy had improved from an absence rate of 52% to 39%. “There was improvement, but it could have been more, given the number and degree of conversations had,” the witness replied. “There was communication, but not to the level required by the safety plan.”
Parental capacity assessor
The third day of the hearing began with a parental capacity assessor, who had conducted an assessment at the request of the Child and Family Agency. The report assessed the mother’s capacity and her ability to supervise and protect the children.
The assessor said that the mother’s level of engagement with the assessment was poor, she did not arrive on the first day, when she did arrive, she was reluctant to stay and when she engaged, she gave evasive and contradictory answers.
The assessor said the mother presented to the assessor as “competent, articulate and intelligent”. She said she had no concerns about her capacity. The accessor said it caused her concern when the mother told her that she had six children, but she had not parented any of her children until the two she had in the State. The oldest four children were primarily raised by family members in the mother’s country of origin. The accessor said that the mother’s family cared for her children whom she visited intermittently while living in a different city. The accessor said she received no answer when she asked whether the mother’s four previous children lived with her when she returned to her home town and began living separately from her family.
The assessor said she believed that the mother was not being honest with her about her relationship status and she heard conflicting information in relation to this. She said she was concerned about the casual nature of the mother’s relationships, that she did not use contraception and had had multiple unplanned pregnancies.
The assessor outlined her concern that the mother ended relationships with partners who expressed an interest in greater levels of commitment. The accessor said that the mother’s “children were not a priority”. She was concerned that she left a partner who had been accused of sexual offending with her children, she declined to engage with the CFA in relation to this and said she had no concerns about this partner being around her children.
The mother had told her that the CFA’s supervision was inconvenient. The accessor said: “Children are not even a secondary consideration when it comes to her relationship history.”
The mother did not prioritise or understand her children’s needs. She said that a significant amount of work needed to be done in relation to the basics of parenting and assessing the risks involved with entering relationships.
The assessor said that children needed to know they had a safe person who would attend to their needs. She added that if a child was neglected they could act out by seeking attention or by withdrawing. If a parent was sometimes attentive and sometimes neglectful that was very damaging, it could impede the child both in terms of getting their basic needs met and their longer term aspirations of being their best self. She said that constant uncertainty damaged children’s brain development and emotional development due to stress.
The assessor agreed with the evidence of the guardian ad litem (GAL) that the children were harmed by their uncertainty over whether the mother would be there to care for them. She noted that the children’s living and care situations were chaotic and unstable. “These children do not even have consistent belongings.”
The assessor agreed with the CFA’s position that for the sake of the child a DNA test should be done to determine the parentage of one of the children where it was unclear. The mother was avoidant and hesitant when questioned about the father of this child.
The assessor said that her conclusion was that the mother was a risk to her children as she neglected them, leaving them open to potential physical and sexual abuse. She said that the mother was not motivated to protect her children as her life was focused on meeting her own needs. She recommended that the children be removed from their mother’s care. She said that the mother needed to demonstrate the ability to provide stability by being able to stay in the same home for a year without coming to the attention of the authorities or getting evicted.
The assessor recommended attachment parental training for the mother. However, she said the training and support would only be valuable when the mother created a sustainable living situation, recognised the need for change and wanted to engage with the training.
The accessor said that the children had experienced several adverse experiences including emotional abuse, parental separation, alcohol abuse and instability. She said the children needed assistance to develop resilience, coping strategies and an understanding of their lives. If they did not receive this support, they would grow into damaged teenagers and adults. She insisted they needed a safe and stable home to get this support and they could not get this with their mother.
The assessor accepted that the mother had lost her father in a car crash, after this the mother’s mother had begun another relationship with a man who died when she was a teenager. The mother had said she was close to him, although the assessor said her memories of him were vague. The mother had told her she had moved to Ireland in her thirties.
The mother’s barrister said that she had been the victim of domestic violence from a former partner. The assessor replied that the mother’s former partner had reported the mother for domestic violence, which she denied. The mother’s barrister said the mother had engaged with Women’s Aid and this was reflected in the CFA files. The assessor did not accept the mother was a victim of domestic violence as she thought her engagement with Women’s Aid and disclosure of domestic violence could have been for the purpose of securing emergency accommodation.
The assessor accepted that the mother was a victim of an assault in public in 2021 and that the father of the children had serious convictions for serious sexual offences. The assessor accepted that the mother had been homeless and living in emergency accommodation for the past four years. However, she described this as “self-inflicted homelessness” not as the result of a partner’s abuse. The assessor said that the mother’s lifestyle choices had contributed to her homelessness and the victims of this were her children.
The assessor said that the mother’s loss of two father figures at a young age was significant but was substantively compensated by her supportive family structure. The mother’s move to Ireland was her choice, not a source of trauma.
The mother’s barrister said: “I find it extraordinary that an objective assessor could look at the mother’s life experiences and deny that she is vulnerable.” The assessor replied that her assessment was based on the mother’s description of her life and choices. The assessor further clarified that she believed the mother was vulnerable when she was in relationships that were violent or controlling.
Responding to the mother’s barrister, the assessor clarified that she had not met the children, although she said she had had an appointment to meet them, but she cancelled the appointment because she heard that the children were very upset and she did not want to upset them further. The mother’s barrister asked if she arranged a follow up meeting with the children but she replied that she considered the children’s situation was stressful and uncertain and a meeting would increase their distress and would contribute little to her assessment. The mother’s barrister said it would be normal to have the children interact with the parents in a parental capacity assessment. The assessor replied that this was the case if they were in care and it was her preference, but it was not essential.
The barrister said that it was inappropriate for the assessor’s report to recommend that the children be removed from their mother’s care without meeting them and determining their preferences. The assessor replied it was entirely appropriate given her perception of the harm and risk being faced by the children. Her job was to assess the mother’s ability to protect her children and if this protection was not happening to assess what impact this had on the children.
She could have met with the children and observed them with the mother, but she believed the children would be harmed by the introduction of another stranger when they were in a stressful situation.
The barrister said he was “lost for words” that the assessor would conduct an assessment in a single day and give her conclusions that afternoon. He said it was extraordinary. The assessor replied that given her experience and training and the information she received from the mother her conclusions were evident relatively quickly. She said it was ordinary practice to inform parents of concerns throughout the day and in the summary at the end of the day.
The assessor was asked if she sought out the views and observations of the support staff in the emergency accommodation. She said that she had not and would not have had the authority to do so. The mother’s barrister quoted from a letter by the key worker at the accommodation which described the mother’s behaviour, conduct and her parenting positively. He suggested to the assessor that she should have taken these views into account. The assessor replied that the mother’s eviction from this accommodation illustrated her inability to provide a consistent safe environment for her children.
The mother’s barrister quoted from a section of the assessor’s report that stated that the mother demonstrated little emotional warmth and bonding when speaking about her children. He suggested she should have seen the mother interacting with the children to confirm this assessment. The assessor replied that it was evident from the information the mother gave her that the children’s needs were not being met and this was the basis of her recommendations, rather than her concerns about the level of emotional connection between the mother and her children.
She said she accepted the barrister’s assertion that the mother relied on her two adult daughters who lived in Ireland. He suggested that the assessor’s report should have included a recommendation of a network meeting or a family support conference instead of a care order. The accessor said the mother did not identity her adult daughters as alternative care providers. It was outside the scope of her role to assess the potential of the older daughter to help in caring for the children.
She agreed with the mother’s barrister that there were cultural differences in how children are raised. She told the court that she had experience of working in the mother’s home country. In that country it was common for men to spend significant time away from the home working and sending money home. It was not common for women to do this. The mother’s barrister suggested that the report’s conclusions that the mother did not prioritise her children reflect a particular cultural standard. The assessor replied that her observations were informed by the standards she had observed in the mother’s home country.
The assessor said she not aware the mother had not taken legal advice before engaging with her. It was not her role to advise the mother of her rights and the legal ramifications of this process. She had explained in their meeting that she was not the decision-maker and the CFA had the authority to make decisions based on her recommendations.
The accessor agreed with the GAL that the stunted social development and lack of friendships that the GAL observed in the children probably stemmed from adverse childhood experiences. The barrister representing the GAL read an excerpt from the GAL’s report where the younger daughter had described her mother failing to return home as being a major source of upset. In response to this the accessor outlined how harmful this was to the children in her view and how it impacted their development and their future relationships.
Guardian ad litem
When asked by the mother’s barrister whether the mother’s difficult life experiences made her a vulnerable person the GAL said that all people are vulnerable, she did not regard the mother as particularly vulnerable and did not believe she wanted to change her circumstances.
When asked if the assessor’s report guided her views, the GAL insisted she was independent in her functions but she agreed that she supported this and the previous applications. She said she considered the report but had made up her own mind.
The mother’s barrister asked the GAL if she believed the mother needed an advocate. The GAL said that she had canvassed the issue with the mother who said she did not think she needed one. The GAL said she accepted this.
The mother’s barrister asked the GAL if she was concerned that measures other than a care order had not been adequately explored. The GAL said that huge efforts had been made but that they were fruitless as the mother did not accept the risk posed to her children by some of the people in her life. The GAL believed that the mother had taken some positive steps but that she was not in a position properly to care for her children. She said that the mother continued to be evasive and uncooperative.
Clarification from social worker
On the previous day the judge had asked the social worker to clarify what supports could be given to the mother. She told the court the CFA could offer the mother a mental health assessment, counselling, the appointment of a key worker, they could link her up with a culturally competent advocate and domestic violence support services, and, if the children were not in care, a parenting training programme. She also said a review of the parental capacity assessment could be carried out in a year or two.
Closing Submissions
The barrister representing the CFA handed up written submissions. The mother’s barrister objected as he had not had forewarning and wished to research the cases cited in them. The judge rose to allow the parties to consider how to proceed.
The barristers committed to delivering submissions by close of business the following week. They asked the judge to make her decision without hearing oral submissions and the matter was listed to set a date for the delivery of a decision.
The judge stressed to the mother the importance of the children being in school and her being contactable by and accessible to the social worker.
The mother and her legal team contested her parental capacity assessment (PCA). The assessor had given her findings and recommendations to the mother verbally on the day of the assessment, before writing a report. The mother felt misled as to the purpose of the PCA, and her barrister said it was unheard of to make findings and recommendations before completing a written report.
When the case resumed two weeks later, the judge delivered her decision. She confirmed she received and read submissions from all. She asked if there were any updates since the last hearing date and whether mental health and psychological assessments of the mother had begun, as directed.
The CFA said it had been having difficulty contacting the mother since the previous court date. The children were living between their two half-sisters in different locations. The CFA lawyer confirmed that there was an access centre located beside the school where it proposed the girls should attend, should an interim care order (ICO) be granted.
The judge said she had listened carefully to the evidence and read the submissions, reports, and all notes on the court files. Having taken time to consider everything, she said that the threshold was met to warrant granting ICOs for each of the two children. She said it was necessary, appropriate, and proportionate to grant them for a month.
She directed that the parents were to receive regular updates on the children’s welfare. She directed that DNA testing was to occur for the father. She directed an access plan to be put in place for the mother, specifically regarding location, duration, and frequency, to be financed by the CFA. She directed that the children were not to attend prison visits without the court’s prior knowledge.
She directed that a family welfare conference should take place as soon as possible with all members from both sides of the family, and a reunification plan be drafted. She directed that the mother receive an up-to-date psychological assessment and counselling. The mother’s advocate was to remain in place, and the father offered an option to have an advocate. She said that the mother was to be given support with long term accommodation.
The judge ordered a new PCA, with an assessor and terms of reference to be agreed amongst all parties. She directed that a copy of the PCA report be provided to the court. The judge discharged the supervision order that was in place.
Addressing the parents directly, the judge explained that the ICOs were for a month and that the CFA would have to make an application to renew them every month. If circumstances changed, parent(s) could ask for an ICO not to be extended and said that this was an opportunity for progress to be made. The judge said that ICOs were required in the best interests of all involved, in particular the children.
The judge thanked the legal representatives for their “Trojan work”. The barrister for the father asked for a date to make an application for a production order, so that he could attend the next court date.
The barrister for the CFA asked if the parents could sign (before leaving court) consent forms for the children to change schools. Outside of court, it transpired that the father signed the consent form, but the mother did not. The judge called everyone back into court, wishing to deal with the matter of the children’s education swiftly.
The mother’s barrister explained to the court that she wished to co-operate, but could not bring herself to sign the form as, in her view, changing the girls’ school felt contradictory to reunification. As a compromise, the mother consented to the court dispensing with her consent and the social worker to be permitted to sign the form in the mother’s stead. The court made an order pursuant to section 47 of the Child Care Act 1991, to dispense of the mother’s consent for the children to change schools.
Addressing the parents for a second time, the judge acknowledged that this was a very hard day for all. She said she understood why the mother would not sign the form, and that she respected her courage. The judge acknowledged that a change of schools would be hard on the children, but she said the distance to the current school was too far and the foster carer did not drive.
She said that she hoped there to be “huge progress” by the next court date and that the mother in particular would receive supports. The CFA’s barrister gave assurances that the judge’s directions would be followed and she confirmed that the social workers had already commenced organising psychological and mental health assessments.