A District Court judge in Dublin granted an extension of interim care orders (ICO) for four children. The children, identified as child A, child B, child C and child D, were living in three separate foster placements. Children A and B lived together in the same foster placement, while children C and D were each living in separate temporary emergency foster placements. The parents were from a Travelling background and the initial contested ICO for these siblings had been made at an earlier date.
The parents were not in court but both were legally represented. The solicitor for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) told the court that child A and child B were living together in a foster placement and both would shortly be moving toanother placement. A short-term emergency placement was due to come through for child C the following day and a short-term emergency placement had just come through that day for child D. This was the third such placement for child D in 28 days.
The mother was not consenting to the extension of the ICO application, and her barrister told the court that the mother had engaged with the guardian ad litem (GAL) and wanted her children back at some point. The mother was dissatisfied that a placement had not been identified for child C and that the CFA was attending court to seek an extension of the ICO without details of a placement for child C. The mother’s barrister also told the court that the children were from a Travelling background and were entitled to have their cultural identity recognised in any foster placements.
The mother also raised concerns over a previous placement and was seeking a supervision order instead of an interim care order with regards to child C. She would prefer child C to live with her under the supervision of a social worker, who could call to the mother’s house, her barrister stated.
The barrister for the father did not contest the ICO extension.
The guardian ad litem (GAL) supported the application but stated that all the children should live together in the placement where child A and child B currently resided. That foster carer was willing to take all four children and it was incumbent on the CFA and the court keep the children together.
The social worker who had given evidence at the initial ICO application was called again. She told the court that it was still not appropriate for the mother to have care of her children, and it was best that the children stayed in care. She advised the court that while the previous conditions of concern in the mother’s house had improved slightly, they were still not up to standard. She stated that the father was in addiction and he had not provided any urine samples. She believed that the ICO should be extended.
The social worker also told the court that child A and child B would be moving to another placement in another county, and that a temporary placement had been arranged for child D. The social worker stated that a placement for child C had fallen through, but that another would be obtained the following day.
The mother’s barrister questioned the social worker about the number of placements child D had had and the barrister said that this upcoming placement would be the third such placement. The social worker agreed that this was the case. The social worker accepted that the mother was engaging with them, but she stated that she “would still have concerns about the conditions of the mother’s property”.
The team lead social worker then gave evidence and she told the court that the current foster carer of child A and B had nine children, some adult, and two of whom had additional needs. She said that this carer needed a break from caring for children, and in her view, this carer could not also take care of child C and child D. She told the judge that a placement had fallen through for child C but that another placement was due to come through for the child the following day. She also told the judge that there was currently an assessment going on of potential foster parents for child C, that was at the initial stages, was for a longer term and was a culturally appropriate placement.
The mother’s barrister then asked the team leader about the uncertainty surrounding the placements for child C and child D and the barrister asked: “Would it not be better if child C, a teenager, resided with their mother under a supervision order?” The team leader stated that this “would be detrimental, and I have been present in the home when there was no food, no electricity and cannabis use”.
The GAL then gave evidence. She stated that she was in contact with all the children and was in regular contact by text with child C. The GAL outlined that child C had a lot of ongoing issues and she was very aware of her Traveller culture. The GAL said that she would support longer foster placements for all children together in a culturally appropriate placement. In circumstances where only short-term placements had been obtained for child C and child D, the GAL was supporting a shorter extension of the ICO in relation to these two children.
The CFA solicitor then told the judge that they had just obtained a short-term placement for child C pending assessment of the longer-term placement.
The judge stated that it was unsatisfactory that agencies were applying to keep children in care, when they (the CFA) did not know where children were going to be placed. The judge said that it was “a huge concern for the courts that children are being moved around between various care placements and three placements in three weeks is not satisfactory for child D.” The judge further stated the ideal was that children were kept together but acknowledged that this was not always possible. He granted an extension of the ICO for child A and child B for 28 days and granted a shorter extension for child C and child D, given the uncertainty of their foster placements.