The District Court made an interim care order (ICO) for three autistic children in a family of five children, all of whom had autism. During the four-day hearing it was accepted that assessments for all the children were either outstanding or out of date.
Private family law proceedings concerning custody were taking place in parallel with the child care proceedings, and the court granted joint custody, with primary care and control for the father, for the oldest child, subject to the father finding suitable accommodation. The custody applications for the remaining four children were adjourned. The mother consented to the ICO for three of the five children: Child C, Child D and Child E.
Day One
The barrister for the CFA said that the CFA were not involved in the custody applications as that was a private law matter.
The family consisted of an unmarried couple with five children who had significant needs. Four of the children had been formally diagnosed with autism, and the fifth, though not formally diagnosed, was suspected of having autism. There was a sixth older half sibling who was also autistic.
The mother was struggling caring for the children on her own. The oldest child, A, was non-verbal, was still wearing diapers and did not attend school regularly. Child A had some support services. Child B had some speech and was doing well in school and getting on well with her teacher but struggled to regulate herself. This child had no support services outside of school.
Children C and D were diagnosed with autism at a very young age. Child C was doing well in school. She was not linked in with any additional support services outside of school.
Child D struggled to regulate her behaviour in the classroom and could be hard to manage. Attempts to keep her safe had impacted her education. Child D was not linked in with a children’s disability network or any additional supports outside of the school.
Child E did not have a diagnosis of autism, however, it was strongly suspected that she does have the condition. E was rarely in school, as not having an autism diagnosis meant that she could not avail of the school transport system. She struggled to sit in the classroom and required a lot of one-on-one attention. The social worker said that child E required more support.
The mother’s barrister said that the mother reluctantly consented to the interim care order. He said that the mother had experienced significant pressure as the sole carer of five children with significant needs and that she was described by professionals as being “a prisoner in her own home”. In addition, the mother had made allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault against the father.
Prior to the parents separating they divided the work between them. The father was a hands-on, stay-at-home father while the mother worked. The father set up a sensory room at the back of the house and installed slides in the back garden. The mother was responsible for applying for government grants that the family was entitled to. Concerns about the children arose after the parents separated.
The allocated social worker said that she had been involved with the family for approximately two years. She received information on the children after a fire brigade attended to a fire at the back of the family home and became concerned for the children’s welfare.
After the parents separated the children resided with their mother in the family home. The parents’ relationship had a history of domestic violence and difficulties in communicating with each other.
The parents struggled to make and maintain a schedule, however the social worker acknowledged that parenting five additional needs children was hard for them. The children had witnessed their parents arguing as well as domestic violence incidents even when the father did not reside in the family home. At one point gardai became involved and a barring order was obtained. While the barring order was in place gardai became involved again when several of the children absconded from the home.
Child A loved trains and he would frequently try to leave the home to go to the train station. On one occasion he was found at a train station a 15-minute walk from the family home. On another occasion he had boarded a train and passengers reported to gardai that there was an additional needs child travelling unaccompanied on the train. On another date A was found in the early hours of the morning on a train.
On that occasion gardai had already picked up children C and D who had also absconded. They told gardai that child A had gone to the train station. The gardai found the mother at home in an inebriated and unconscious state unable to care for her children. In another incident the carers went to the house but the door was locked. Child E was inside the house, naked and screaming that she could not wake mommy and water was running down the walls. The father said that he had put safety measures, such as safety box that could only be opened by a fingerprint to leave the keys in, so that the children could not get out. The mother did not keep the keys in the safe and the children got out.
Gardai were also called when neighbours saw the children in the early hours of the morning running up and down their very busy road. When gardai arrived, they again found the mother in an unconscious state, and struggled to wake her. Another similar incident occurred and gardai again attended at the family home.
Cry for help
The social worker agreed that an email the mother sent to her was a cry for help. The mother said in her email that her children did not sleep. They suffered from incontinence issues, so she changed approximately ten nappies per night with several of the children smearing faeces. The mother had to wash and dry two full beds every day. During the day she struggled to meet the children’s needs. Also, the mother could not leave the house due to the risk of the children fleeing.
The mother had said, “I have significant trauma which I am not able to process. I have requested overnights from the HSE. I have no relationship with my mother to give me help. My children need a stable home where they are secure and are able to build trust. I am a good mother, but I need help.”
The CFA then provided three care staff for the morning and night shifts. At one point the mother sought to go to a women’s refuge for domestic violence. In addition, despite one of the children not receiving an autism diagnosis from a first appointment the mother sought a second opinion from another psychologist. The social worker agreed that although the mother was in a vulnerable position, she had demonstrated insight into her and her children’s position and she was eager to work in her children’s best interest. The mother’s barrister said that since the mother’s letter and despite the additional care provided by the HSE there had been no substantial change in the high level of need required by the children.
The care staff’s role was to support the parents. They performed light duties such as changing beds, preparing meals and additional support at mealtime. They also responded to the children if they woke during the night. Their role was not to parent the children, nor were they allowed to be left alone with the children. The social worker said that it was not a normal situation to have carers in the home every day and that providing carers to the family would not address the main issue. She said that the Health Service Executive (HSE) did not have the staff to continue to provide carers. The HSE proposed providing carers for four hours daily with no overnights and no weekends.
It was determined that the children should be reassessed. The family received very little to no intervention from disability services and the CFA were concerned that the children would not be safe or have their disability needs met if they remained at home. In addition, for almost two years the mother did not attend 75 per cent of the children’s psychology appointments. The social worker said, “The parent’s love their children, but it is not appropriate for them to remain at home.” She hoped that the mother would engage with available services such as alcohol addiction services.
Father seeking custody
The father opposed the ICO and made a custody application in respect of his five children, however he acknowledged that he did not have suitable accommodation for them. The father had proposed moving the children into his aunt’s two-bedroom Dublin City Council apartment and the aunt would move to the father’s family home. Two children would each share a bedroom and the father and child A would sleep on a sofa bed.
The social worker had not visited the home but based on the description alone felt that the apartment would not be suitable for the father and children. The apartment was next to a busy road and would not give the children room to play. In addition, the CFA had received no confirmation that Dublin City Council were aware of the proposed arrangement, and if not, father and children could be asked to leave at short notice. The father said that his brother would help him care for his children if he was given custody, however the social worker said that she had seen no evidence of his brother helping him with the children.
Without custody the father could not make an application for family housing or be entitled to have his name put on a council housing list. In addition, without custody he would also not be eligible for child benefit payment to help improve his financial resources in order to obtain accommodation. Because of this the grandfather had said that he would gift €4,000 to the father to rent a private house. The father had viewed three properties during the week of the court proceedings. The GAL said that the court proceedings had been going on for several months, therefore there was ample time to look for a house.
The social worker said that the father’s lack of accommodation was a significant factor in the CFA seeking an interim care order, however she said that she did not believe that the father could meet the children’s significant needs on his own. The mother said she had asked the father for help in caring for the children, but he did not help her and that impacted upon her ability to parent and get the children ready for school. However, the father’s barrister said that the evidence showed that when the father had resumed his relationship with the children’s mother after a period of separation that the CFA had no child protection concerns.
The CFA asked the parents to plan for getting the children to and from school, however no plan was made by either the parents or their support network. The social worker had stressed the importance of the father being involved in all care and assessments of the children particularly if the children were returned home in the future. However, she noted that despite increased consistency in being involved with the children, the father had delayed in linking in with disability services. She said that carers were not sustainable for the children and compared the presence of carers in the home to an unregulated residential unit.
The father’s barrister said that the father wanted to parent his children full-time, however he was not able to assist with the child care as the mother refused him access to his children and, in addition, he could not get information about his children, despite a social work report that he posed no risk to them. After some time, the father was granted access to and guardianship of his children, however he was living in his parent’s house, so he did not have the accommodation required for access.
During this time the father had the children every weekend, but the mother would not co-parent with him. The father was so concerned about the welfare of his children that he felt he had no choice but to re-enter a relationship with the mother so that he could return to the family home.
Barrister for the CFA: “Why is an interim care order required in respect of the father?”
Social worker: “He does not have appropriate accommodation. I don’t believe that the father has the understanding of the children’s needs and the ability to provide all that is required at this point. I don’t think that he could do it on his own to allow the children to be able to grow and develop as required.”
The barrister for the CFA said that there was an extensive amount of domestic violence in the relationship, however the father denied those allegations. The social worker said that although she never witnessed any altercation between the father and mother she did experience the father being angry and upset towards herself. She said that there was an incident between the father and mother which included a pepper spray gun and gardai had to be called.
Father’s barrister
The father’s barrister said that the mother had engaged in a campaign to remove the father from the children’s lives, despite breaching a safety order herself on several occasions. The mother had alleged that one of the daughters saw her father’s penis when she walked in on him using the toilet. In addition, the mother did not allow the father to have access with the children or assist her in caring for the children.
The father’s barrister said that there were numerous incidents kept from the father such as the mother and a friend starting a fire in the back garden while under the influence of alcohol. Gardai had invoked section 12 of the Child Care Act four times in a three-week period. (Section 12 provides that An Garda Siochana can remove a child from a location if they have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate and serious risk to the child’s health or welfare.) The father did not know of these incidents.
The social worker said that she did not have the father’s contact number to notify him, however the father’s barrister said: “If you conducted your job with any due diligence, you would have been able to find out where father lived.” After the father became aware of the incidents, he asked the CFA for help because he was afraid that one of the children would be killed or seriously hurt. The CFA did not respond to him but took the children into care when the children were found on the main road while the mother was unconscious at home.
Day Two: GAL evidence
The guardian ad litem (GAL) said that HSE staff had made a referral to the CFA in respect of the home being neglected, the children’s toilet issues and lack of nappies and/or the children being left in dirty nappies, lack of food in the house and food being used as a form of punishment. The GAL said that the concern of the children not being fed was not put to her. The GAL had spoken with the HSE, and they confirmed that there was no need for a care order or a supervision order.
The GAL said that she had spoken to the children’s school, An Garda Siochana, the allocated social worker as well as reading social work reports. She did not meet with the children. She said that her approach involved observing the mother with the children and a review of the father’s personal circumstances.
The GAL had visited the family home and met with the children’s mother. She also spoke with the father, gardai investigating the allegations of domestic violence and rape, and the manager of the children’s creche. The creche manager described the mother as a wonderful mother. The GAL said that both parents presented as loving and very committed to their children.
The mother spoke freely about her relationship with the children’s father and her joy at being a mother. She described the challenges she faced in respect of her children and her relationship with their father. She said that when they became parents the father became angry, and they had arguments due to the stress of having children with disabilities.
After one such argument the father wanted to leave, however the mother blocked him from leaving. He picked her up and moved her and she called gardai. The mother alleged coercive control, however the father told gardai that he had no control over the family’s finances. The mother also said that the father was rough with the children and verbally abusive to her son from a previous relationship, who was also autistic. She alleged that the father was involved in criminal activity and that she had had to obtain a barring order after he sexually assaulted her. She felt that during the investigation into her alleged rape and domestic violence the father should have supervised access and should not be granted shared custody.
Due to the barring order the father did not see his children for seven months. He was not able to give the children their Christmas gifts until summer vacation when he met them in a park. The father’s access with his children was supervised by the children’s maternal grandmother who sometimes recorded the access. The father had said that the children required speech and language therapy, but the mother would not pay for it.
The CFA had described the father as a good parent. There were no complaints from the homecare workers that the father was rough or abusive in any way. In addition, disability services noted that structure in the home deteriorated after the father left.
The GAL said that she had assured the mother that she would not recommend a care order, however she had suggested that it may be a good break for the mother if the father were granted shared custody.
The GAL said that An Garda Siochana and the home carers did not provide any information that suggested the parents were abusive or that the father would be a danger to his children, but since her report several barring orders were granted, gardai removed the children on numerous occasions, and the parents were repeatedly found intoxicated. The GAL admitted that she was not aware that those things occurred, but said that the HSE were actively involved and that she saw no evidence of abuse or drinking in the home.
Day Three
The social worker was asked about the delay in the Children’s Disability Network Team (CDNT) becoming involved, something that the GAL had criticised. The social worker agreed with the criticism, but said it was a very busy service with limited capacity to support families at home. The main point was that it was now active, which was a positive development. She agreed the father had been supportive of the service since it began in November.
The father’s barrister said the CDNT logs referred to the history of trauma and disruption in the home which had led the team to focus on school-based interventions, which were considered the most meaningful for the children. It was suggested that if the children were taken into care, they would have to change schools, which would not be the case if the father was granted custody. The logs were clear that the children required consistency, and this was something the father could provide. The witness agreed that changing schools could be disruptive for the children, but it was in their best interests.
The barrister said the father was further concerned by the CFA’s plan to change B’s school and place her in a residential disability setting in another county. The father did not believe this would be in her best interests.
The social worker was asked if she was aware of the strategies being used by the father to support the children with autism diagnoses. The witness said she was aware the father was using social stories to help prepare A for his daily routine and reduce his emotional outbursts. These social stories included balancing harder tasks with rewards. She accepted that these methods had addressed specific challenges, such as helping A sleep in his own bed rather than on the sofa.
Father’s barrister: “Do you accept that Child A will now only go to school and be collected by his father, when previously he wouldn’t go at all?”
Social worker: “Yes, this has been working well since November.”
The social worker agreed the father had also managed to get Child A’s hair cut, something that the child had strongly resisted in the past. She attributed the change to the father’s use of social stories and a reward system. She further accepted that when A had outbursts, the CDNT staff often deferred to the father to manage the situation. She acknowledged that he was able to implement clear boundaries with A.
A letter from the school was shown to the witness which the barrister said commended the father for his use of visual tools and time scales. She said she had not seen the letter.
Referring to a CDNT log, it was suggested that additional supports could be offered to the father if he was given custody of the children. The witness said they needed a “consistent, reliable, and stable environment,” something they had not had in recent years, but added that she could not speak on behalf of the CDNT.
The barrister said that although CDNT staff had been in the home since November, there were “notable gaps” in the available logs. She asked the witness to confirm whether there were any logs available for November 2024, January, February, or March 2025. The social worker said she had read some logs but could not recall “pages and pages” of them. She maintained that everything in her possession had been shared.
Moving to a wider review of the available logs and the recorded observations, the father’s barrister referred to earlier evidence which suggested the father had been rough with the children at times and had raised his voice. She asked the witness to confirm whether, across the three-month period of her involvement with the children’s case, there were any similar examples recorded. She said there were not. When asked whether there were any examples of the father being neglectful of the children’s emotional needs or lacking in warmth or care, the witness replied, “not in the logs I have seen.”
The father would give evidence that when present in the home, he became the children’s primary carer day and night. The care staff would say they did not need to “step up” when the father was there. All they had to do was assist generally with managing the household. The witness said there were occasions where care staff did have to assist the father further, particularly around mealtimes. She was certain this had also been recorded in the logs.
The barrister said the father accepted care staff carried out most household tasks, such as cleaning and laundry, but said that since they had started coming to the home, the father had been there four nights per week and had been very involved. The witness agreed. The witness further agreed that on nights where the father stayed over, he got up at 5:30am, prepared the children’s breakfast and helped them get dressed with staff support. She agreed the mother did not get up at that time and that there had been a noticeable change when the father began staying over.
The social worker was asked what, specifically, she believed the father was not doing in the home. She said that the logs only offered “a snapshot” of daily life and pointed out that the household included five children, all of whom required one-to-one support. She said she would not expect any single parent to manage that alone. In her view, the smooth running of the home was due to the presence of three care staff, and the children’s needs were currently being met because of this additional help.
It was suggested that the real issue was one of support, both professional and family-based. The barrister said relatives would give evidence that they were willing to help, and that professional support could come through the HSE. The social worker disagreed. She said there had been “significant gaps” in the father’s involvement with the children over time, and that their complex needs required more than basic care. In her opinion, neither parent currently had the capacity to fully meet these needs on their own. She said the hope was that, over time, both parents would develop the skills needed, but this was not yet the case.
She was challenged on her earlier evidence that the children were quite isolated and did not get out much. The barrister said the father’s evidence would be that, before November, when he only had weekend access, he regularly brought the children out to the beach and places like the solar museum. The witness said she was concerned that the children were not engaged in activities specifically designed to support their needs, such as sensory camps or sporting activities like GAA.
The father’s barrister pointed out that the father had very limited access at the time and had gone to court in an effort to increase that. He was “banging on the door to get extra access.” The witness acknowledged this but said that as a legal guardian, he was still allowed contact the children’s school to find out more about their day-to-day needs and activities.
Turning to the father’s relationship with A, the witness agreed they had a strong bond and that A was attached to his father. The barrister said A only agreed to attend school if his father brought him, and relied on his father to help with daily routines such as getting dressed and going to bed. The witness agreed that since November, these kinds of tasks would not have been possible without the father’s involvement.
Judge: “So would you accept he does things for his dad that he wouldn’t otherwise do for social workers?”
Social worker: “Yes.”
The barrister said the father felt it was unfair that the CFA did not speak directly to the care staff working in the home. The witness said it would not be her role to contact them directly.
The witness was asked why the CFA had chosen not to rely on the CDNT logs as formal evidence or to call the care staff as witnesses. The father’s legal team had to request the logs themselves. The CFA solicitor interjected and said each party was entitled to call their own witnesses.
Judge: “Yes, this isn’t a matter for the social worker.”
Father’s barrister: “But you accept you didn’t mention any details within the logs that show positives?”
Social worker: “They are not my logs.”
Father’s barrister: “You say you hope in the future you can support a return to parental care, but you won’t provide a letter of support to the housing authority on behalf of [the father]?”
Social worker: “I’m not sure what that would do… it is not part of what the team is working towards right now.”
The barrister noted the social worker had referred to a history of domestic violence. She asked if the witness recalled the father telling her that the mother had made false allegations against him and his view that “mud sticks.”
Cross-examination of social worker by solicitor for GAL
The solicitor for the GAL asked the social worker about the qualifications of the CDNT staff. She suggested these staff members were not trained to assess the children’s levels of need, to which the witness agreed.
She also confirmed the GAL had submitted a detailed report which raised serious concerns about the children’s wellbeing. Extracts from the report were read out. A was non-verbal and had epilepsy. He was not toilet trained and frequently displayed high emotional distress. According to his school principal, his emotional needs had increased noticeably. He had very limited skills and required intensive support.
Similarly, B had been diagnosed with ASD following an assessment in 2018. She continued to have speech and language difficulties and required a high level of personal care. Despite her age, she still wore pull-ups at night.
C initially tested negative for ASD, but a subsequent psychological assessment contradicted this. Nonetheless, she had been discharged from the CDNT and was not receiving services. D presented with similar issues and had also been discharged from the CDNT. The witness was asked whether it was fair to describe all of the children as having extraordinary levels of need. She agreed it was.
The witness further agreed that the father appeared to lack a concrete plan for the children. Despite ongoing engagement since November, the CFA had not been able to “pin him down” on this.
A letter written by the mother was referred to but not read aloud. The solicitor described it as “heartbreaking” and said it reflected the extent of the mother’s struggles.
The witness accepted when put to her that assessments for each of the children were either entirely outstanding or out of date.
Evidence of father’s brother
The father’s brother said he lived with his brother in the family home which had been inherited when their mother died. He worked full-time and had two sons of his own, but neither lived with him. He had a good relationship with his family and all of the children.
He visited the children roughly once a fortnight or once a month and would help out with childcare when needed. He said the children were always loving towards him. He said no one had ever raised concerns about his capacity to help care for the children, and that he had occasionally minded A on his own.
Asked about his relationship with B before the breakdown between the parents, he said it was strong. He acknowledged both A and B had significant needs and that he had witnessed emotional outbursts from both children, but said he was generally able to manage them.
When asked about the father’s motivation for resuming his relationship with the children’s mother in 2022, he said his brother was concerned for the children’s safety and well-being and wanted to be present in their lives.
Following another breakdown of the relationship in 2023, the witness recalled that his brother had once again lost access to the children during the week. He said his brother was very concerned at the time about the children’s welfare and had fought to get weekend access.
When asked about the practical support he could offer, the witness said that he worked full-time, Monday to Friday, but would be available to assist two to three evenings a week if needed.
He denied ever seeing his brother behave aggressively towards the children, but acknowledged hearing him scold them on occasion. He also said he had never witnessed any abusive behaviour towards the children’s mother.
When asked if there was anything else he would like to say to the court, the witness said his brother had been “breaking his back” to see his children over the previous four years. He was determined to be in their lives and to care for them.
Cross-examination of father’s brother
In cross-examination by the CFA solicitor, the witness agreed that because of his work commitments he was not able to help out during the week before 5pm. Pointing to CDNT logs from December 2024 to May 2025, the solicitor said they did not record any visits by him. The only family member mentioned in the logs was a cousin. She said she was surprised, given his previous claims about regular contact. The witness said he could not give exact dates but believed he had visited within the last eight weeks.
He agreed that when he did visit the children, carers were generally present and that his role was mostly to be in the house while his brother was out.
CFA solicitor: “In fairness, you’re a decent brother, your brother calls you, you come over and watch the kids for an hour?”
Father’s brother: “Yes.”
CFA solicitor: “So it’s fair to say you’re not available on a more permanent basis than that?”
Father’s brother: “Well my job is quite flexible so I can be there more often if I need to.”
He denied ever being concerned about the children’s welfare. When asked whether he was aware his brother had been the subject of previous barring orders, he said he was. He was also aware his brother had spent a month in prison for breaching one of them.
Paternal grandfather’s evidence
The children’s paternal grandfather gave evidence about his relationship with the children and his views on the father’s ability to care for them.
He saw the children at weekends while they were growing up, although not every weekend, as he worked long hours as a truck driver. He visited the house when A was small but never stayed overnight. When C and D were born, he saw them about two to three times a month. He said they called him “grandpa.” He had no concerns at the time about how the children were being parented. Even after the family moved, he continued to see the children “roughly” twice a month.
When asked about the CFA’s view that the father could not care for the children adequately, he disagreed. He said his son had a strong family support network who were available to help whenever needed. Although he lived in a different county, he was retired so he had a lot of time to help out. He was aware of A and B’s autism diagnoses and the suspected diagnoses for C and D, and said he was still in a position to help.
In addition, he said he could offer financial support as his son was currently unemployed and seeking housing assistance. He could help cover private rental costs for at least a year. He added that he was expecting a large compensation settlement, which would allow him to provide even more support.
Cross-examination of paternal grandfather
When asked by the CFA solicitor when he was last in the children’s home, he said it had been over a year. He explained that he had been recovering from a serious accident and was not currently able to drive.
He acknowledged that A and B had additional needs, but believed the younger children were just “boisterous.” He said he saw the children around once every six weeks, and only for a few hours at a time. He said he had 12 grandchildren in total and saw the others more often because they lived nearby. He accepted he did not see his son’s four children as frequently.
He also confirmed that he was aware his son had spent a month in jail for breaching a barring order. When asked if he accepted that domestic violence can affect children, he replied, “well, obviously it would.”
Paternal step-grandmother’s evidence
The children’s step-grandmother said she previously worked as a healthcare assistant at a hospital, but had since retired. While working she visited the family home whenever she was not on night shifts.
She said A was non-verbal but she was able to connect with him using pictures, drawing on her professional experience working as a healthcare assistant. She described her step-son as a very hands-on father who would plan activities, play games, and even paint his nails for the children. She said he often looked for advice from her sister, who is a teacher with experience in special needs education.
She said that after the parents’ relationship ended during the pandemic, the children’s mother “shut the door” and stopped all contact between the children and the paternal side of the family. She said any suggestions to visit were turned down.
Between 2020 and 2022, while the father was seeking access, she did not see the children at all. When he was granted weekend access in September 2022, she still did not see them in person because she was caring for her husband after his accident. She had some contact through video calls when the father and mother got back together briefly in late 2022.
Although her step-son had been caring for the children three to four days a week since November, the witness said she had not visited the house during this time as she did not feel welcome there, but continued to speak to the children via video calls. She said the social worker’s claim that the father lacked a support network was “wrong.” She described the family as very close-knit and organised, saying they even kept a rota at home to coordinate support. She and her husband were “100 per cent” ready to provide both practical and financial help to her step-son.
She said: “It’s all very unfair. I take my hat off to him, he just has a way with the kids. When one is breaking down, he can settle the other… you have to be there to see it, it’s beautiful. You see the difference in them when he is there… he’s a very caring fella, a good fella.”
Cross-examination of paternal step-grandmother
The witness agreed she was very busy with 13 grandchildren. She said she managed her time carefully using a household rota and was well-organised.
When asked why she had not visited the children in their mother’s home for over a year, she repeated her previous evidence that she did not feel welcome there. The CFA solicitor suggested it might have been even longer, which she did not dispute.
Day Four
A home support worker manager said that the home care team documented all supports and interactions with the family in a care logbook which was then forwarded to the CFA. The manager said that she did not work directly with the family or visit the family home, however she confirmed that there were no gaps in the care logbook submitted.
The care logbooks did not raise any child protection concerns but indicated that the parents focused on the children while the carers changed the beds and nappies etc. However there had been one incident where one of the children obtained the key to the door and was able to leave the house. In another incident one of the children put cleaning materials in the microwave. If the carers had not been there, they could have started a fire.
The home care support workers’ principal role was to ensure that the domestic tasks were completed. They provided basic care such as feeding the children, bathing them and engaging them in daily activities. They often worked the night shift which started at 10pm.
The children were given melatonin in the evening, but they would not all be in bed when the home care shift started, and they would sometimes wake during the night. Child A was often up late. Although he was encouraged to go to bed, he would not want to when he was watching his tablet. This never happened when the father was at home. Twice the mother had left Child A downstairs and gone to bed herself.
Both home care workers worked with both the mother and father. She said that when the father was there he did all of the parenting. The father would wake the children, make them breakfast, get them dressed and take them to school. The carers left when the children went to school. One of the home care workers said that she admired how the father cared for his children and that she had no fear of the children absconding when the father was at home. They did not see any alarming behaviour from the father. The children told their parents that they loved them. Both home care workers became emotional, and one said that it would not be OK for the children to be separated from their parents.
The father’s brother, cousin and aunt often visited the house when the father lived there. The mother’s mother and a friend also used to visit to help out with the children. The home care worker became very emotional and said that she loved the children.
Firearm issue
A Garda gave evidence that the father had served time in prison for possession of an illegal firearm. A Garda said that they had received a 999 call that a male was threatening to use a taser on a female. Gardai attended at the house and met the mother while the father remained inside.
The Garda said that the father’s behaviour was erratic. He was observed through the windows running from room to room. The children were also awake and running around the house. The father tried to leave the house but was stopped. The armed unit arrived and told him to remain where he was and remove his hands from his pockets. The father refused to do so and he was forced to the ground and arrested for a public order offence. Gardai recovered a large taser, a can of pepper spray, a pepper ball gun and gas cannisters.
The Garda said that the pepper ball gun is classified as a firearm. It projectile fires and explodes pepper spray on impact. The mother had been very upset, crying and shaking. The children had also been very upset. Both the mother and father had appeared to be intoxicated. That case was still ongoing. The father had made a complaint to the Garda Ombudsman (GSOC) due to the incident.
Father’s evidence
The father said that he and the mother experienced difficulties in their relationship. On occasion he would leave the family home, then return. He had a protection order and a barring order made against him at various times.
When the barring order was made the father said that he had been very surprised. The mother had told him that she was going out for bin bags and while she was gone gardai removed him from the house. The mother had alleged that the father had sexually assaulted her. After the barring order was granted, the father saw the children twice in seven months. He said that during that time the HSE care team identified that the children were always tired, hungry, smelled strongly of urine and were not dressed appropriately for the weather. The children had also not been able to use the sensory playroom.
The father became very emotional and said that he had to view the children’s creche website to see pictures of his children. He was convicted of 10 breaches of the barring order for online and telephone communications to the mother asking to see his children. He was also accused of driving by the family home.
He was arrested and sentenced to 11 months imprisonment which was overturned on appeal although he did spend a couple of weeks in prison for each breach of the barring order. In addition, the father said that important information regarding his children was not given to him. Child A was put in a respite facility, however, the father was not advised of that, nor was he advised when A went missing in respite.
The father said: “I tried everything to see them, how can I care for my kids when I am stopped by the court and their mother.” At one point the father begin to have access on the weekends during which time he would take the children to the park, beach or play centres, but often the children appeared exhausted.
During that time, he made a custody application but was refused because he did not have a house for the children, and he could not be put on council housing list without custody. He was granted guardianship of his children.
The father said that one of the current issues with obtaining custody of his children was that the CFA did not think that he had suitable accommodation. When the father and mother signed up for council housing the mother thought that the father’s conviction might be a problem, so he removed his name from the housing application. Despite his name not being on the tenancy he still spent money on the property installing floors and wardrobes etc. The father also built a sensory playroom in a former granny flat situated in the garden. After the parents separated the mother turned the playroom into a bedroom.
After some time apart the father felt that the only way to have a relationship with his children was to resume his relationship with their mother. He said that either the children would be put in care, or they would end up in prison. He moved back into the family home and found it had deteriorated. The walls were drawn on and locks were installed on all the doors. It was alleged that the mother would lock the children in their rooms and leave the house. The father had to clear and clean the house and redecorate it when he moved back in.
The mother returned to work when the parents resumed their relationship. She left for work before the children left for school. The father stayed at home for the children. He got the children up, fed and dressed for school. During this time the HSE provided carers for 32 hours per week. The HSE care staff did not bring any child protection concerns to the CFA while the father was living in the family home.
Father: “Tusla found I was not a danger to my children but recommended that I have joint custody which I lost only because I did not have a house. I felt the only way I could keep my children safe was to re-enter the relationship and move back into the family home. During this time, I was abused not only by the mother but by the entire system. A couple of very serious incidents have happened. My children have serious disabilities, and they would not do well in care.”
The father’s barrister said that interfering with a family and removing the children could only be done in exceptional cases. She said that it was not necessary to take five vulnerable children who love and adore their father to be separated and taken into care.
The judge said that it was normally in the best interest of children to be raised by their own parents. The judge said that he was struck by the emotional evidence of the HSE care staff who all gave evidence of a very loving relationship between the children and their father.
The initial interim care order for Child A was adjourned. The court granted interim care orders for Children C, D and E. The court also granted joint custody of Child A with primary care and control to the father, however it put a stay on that order until the father found suitable accommodation.
The judge retained seisin of the case, which would return to court for a renewal of the interim care order.