The District Court in a regional town extended interim care orders for six months for three children amid allegations of child sex abuse. Other concerns included alcohol abuse and homelessness.
Both parents were legally represented. The court was informed that the mother was neither consenting nor objecting to the application, while the father was objecting.
Evidence of the social worker
The social worker told the court that access had been suspended for both parents. When she had been allocated to the case the father’s access had already been suspended. The mother had been having fortnightly supervised access, subject to her confirming attendance by telephone the day before.
On one occasion, six months previously, the mother failed to confirm the access visit. When the social worker contacted her the following day, she formed the view that the mother was under the influence of intoxicants. The mother became irate and stated that she would see her children every week and that nothing could stop her. The social worker reported that the children were dysregulated following the incident, with one child experiencing night terrors.
At a subsequent access meeting arranged for the mother, she had again appeared intoxicated, with slurred speech. The father had attended the meeting but remained outside at the request of the social worker. At the conclusion of the meeting he had become aggressive towards the guardian ad litem (GAL) and the social worker.
The social worker stated that the mother was engaged with an addiction counsellor, but her attendance had been inconsistent, with her last session two months previously. Both parents remained homeless and had been refused accommodation in B&Bs and homeless services due to altercations.
The children were in short-term placements pending longer-term arrangements. The oldest child had started junior infants. The social worker expressed particular concern about the middle child, who had been upset by her older brother on a number of occasions. In one recent incident it was alleged that the older child had tried to insert a toy into his younger sister’s genitals. He later apologised.
The social worker outlined the safety plan, which required that the children not be left unsupervised. The oldest child had recently undergone a specialist interview with An Garda Síochána in relation to suspected child sexual abuse. He remained hypervigilant and had expressed the view that he did not wish to see his parents.
The middle child had also stated that she did not want to see her father. The youngest child was described as traumatised and was also suspected of having experienced child sexual abuse. He was reported to freeze for long periods and required constant care and reassurance.
The social worker confirmed that there were no immediate health concerns for the children. When asked why the CFA was seeking a full care order, she cited ongoing concerns regarding the children’s emotional well-being, continuing disclosures of abuse, trauma symptoms, including night terrors and soiling, the father’s aggressive behaviour, and the mother’s frequent intoxication. She stated that there had been no meaningful engagement by the parents with services.
Under cross-examination by the father’s lawyer, the social worker accepted that further meetings with the father could be arranged in the future to discuss access. She explained that he had not been invited to the most recent access meeting because his access had already been suspended. She stated that access could not be reinstated at present due to the children’s level of trauma and presentation with night terrors.
In response to questions from the mother’s lawyer, the social worker said it was essential that the mother engage in residential treatment for her addiction. She agreed that photographs of the children could be provided to the mother and confirmed that the mother could contact her at any time for updates.
Evidence of the father
The father told the court that he was applying for rental accommodation and seeking full-time employment in ground works, car valeting and other areas. He said the children were always asking “where is Daddy” and that he did not believe they were traumatised. He wanted to show the judge a video of the children, however, the judge stated that it would not be appropriate to play videos of the children in court.
Evidence of the guardian ad litem
The GAL supported the CFA’s application and recommended full care orders until the children reached 18 years of age. He said that the children had been taken into care by Gardaí in March of the previous year and that there had been no material change in the parents’ circumstances since then. The father did not accept any responsibility for the children coming into care.
The GAL expressed alarm that the mother had attended an access meeting while intoxicated and had denied drinking. He was particularly concerned by the level of aggression displayed by the father towards the mother when he arrived at the meeting. He recommended that the mother engage with MOVE Ireland, a service for women and children affected by domestic violence. He described the father’s behaviour as unacceptable and stated that the children were traumatised and needed to feel safe.
The GAL stated that the current foster carer for the middle child had previously cared for both the middle and oldest child but had declined to continue caring for the oldest child due to his behaviour towards his sister. The middle child had progressed rapidly once separated from her older sibling.
The GAL recommended significant therapy for all three children, which would need to begin as soon as the oldest child was in a long-term placement, and would likely continue for years. He supported the suspension of access, stating that his obligation was to the children and that they were traumatised by access.
When asked by the judge, he confirmed that the children generally got on well together, with normal sibling squabbling, and he encouraged more frequent sibling access.
Judge’s ruling
The judge noted that the father was not consenting to the application and that the mother was neither consenting nor objecting. She said the children had experienced significant trauma and indicated that she would seek to prioritise a full section 18 care order hearing to bring certainty to the case. She said she acknowledged the difficulties faced by the CFA in sourcing suitable placements.
The judge found that the threshold for the making of the order had been met. She stated that the children had experienced neglect and that their health and welfare required the making of the order. She extended the interim care order for six months and reiterated that she would seek priority for the full care order hearing. She directed that access was to remain at the discretion of the CFA, and that all necessary supports were to be afforded to the parents to enable them to engage with any access that might be arranged.