An interim care order was granted for two teenagers where an emergency care order had been granted one week earlier. The court was informed that the father had a private application the following week in the family courts for custody and his barrister argued that both applications should be heard together and that the ICO should be adjourned to allow the file to be transferred to the Dublin Metropolitan District family court.
The guardian ad litem was supporting the ICO but was opposing the adjournment application.
The CFA solicitor told the court that the emergency care order evidence had been heard in the Criminal Courts of Justice (CCJ) building following a Section 12 application from the Garda. The judge had heard the application in the CCJ and granted the emergency care order.
The CFA solicitor said that there had been ongoing concerns for over a year and he was only intending to call the social worker to give evidence. The solicitor said the father had had ample time previously to bring any application he wanted and that the social workers had been very upfront with the parents about their concerns. Safety plans had been put in place but the parents had failed to deal with the issues or follow the plans.
The judge refused the adjournment application and heard the interim care order application. The court was told that both parents were opposing the ICO application. An interim care order application had previously been withdrawn due to a lack of an appropriate placement apart from an out-of-hours placement. The CFA solicitor asked for the guardian ad litem appointed previously to be reappointed.
The social worker said she had been working with the family for 12 months. She outlined her visits with the family and referred to an unannounced home visit which had been the first visit. She said the house was in a poor condition. The children were crying and frightened, the mother was upset and there were allegations of both physical and emotional abuse from the father, who was from another country.
The social worker said there was shattered glass in the kitchen and that the parents were using the oven to heat the house. She said the family was struggling financially, despite the fact that the father said he was supporting the family. The situation was not safe for the children.
There was some reference to the children staying with their maternal grandmother. However, the relationship with the grandmother was complex, which related back to trauma in childhood for which the mother blamed her mother, and they seemed to communicate through other people.
The court was told that at times the neighbours cleaned the house and as part of the safety plan they would call the grandmother. However, the family struggled to keep the house clean and it would deteriorate at times. As part of the safety plan, the father was not to stay in the house but he could see the children in the community and he would help with the shopping and bring the shopping and leave it at the door.
In late 2024, it was reported that the mother was upset and had a low mood, and she was struggling financially. The social worker said when she visited the house there was a smell of cannabis inside and outside of the house. She said the house was in a poor condition and she observed a joint in the ashtray. She said the mother struggled with cannabis and smoked up to three a day.
The social worker referred to safety plans which were both written and verbal. She said that there were numerous reports from neighbours of incidents. There was a care planning meeting held in the house and the mother and family members were there and some of the shouting and screaming and cursing discontinued.
In early 2025 the family was provided with tickets for public transport as the father was upset at the social worker that no taxis and no support had been provided.
There were also concerns about the children’s non-attendance at school, which the family blamed on the fact that they had no way of getting to the school. Again, in early 2025 the social worker outlined struggles that the mother was having including low mood, crying, screaming and she said she felt let down and isolated.
A child protection case conference was convened in Spring 2025 at which there were representatives from the GAL, the school and the parents. Concerns were relayed about the children being exposed to parental conflict but the concerns were minimised by the parents. The mother did recognise some of the worries and they tried to come up with another safety plan, but the mother was heightened and upset. The plan was that the father would not stay in the house, but the parents were not fully honest about the situation. The social worker said that while she only saw the substance usage once it was contributing to instability. She said the house was unclean and there was rubbish all around.
The safety network did help but the cleaning was not sustained and the parents said they could not rely on the support of other family members. The court was told that the mother suffered from fibromyalgia and had pains in her legs and ankles; she had also voiced suicidal ideations and said she took medications but they did not work. The social worker said she always encouraged the mother to go to her GP and suggested some domestic violence support agencies and a family support worker. The mother would initially agree but there was no follow through.
The social worker said she observed the children being at home in their pyjamas on school days between 11am and 12 noon. The social work team had offered supports. Arguments between the parents were continuing and they was fighting and shouting. The children were scared and crying and often asked the social worker to play colouring in with them. The social worker said they would run to her and hug her. The social worker said the eldest child checked in on the younger child.
In April 2025, it was reported that one of the children had been hit by a car and prior to the accident the mother had been in a low mood and was crying and the children were left unsupervised. The eldest one was blaming herself as she had taken on the mothering role.
The social worker had visited in May and reported that the home was again in a poor state. She said supports had been offered and again there was a safety planning meeting which ended prematurely as the mother was upset. The social worker said that she told the parents how serious things were and that if the safety plan was not working and they refused the supports then other things would need to happen.
The social worker had arranged for a cleaning company to come to the house and had arranged for funding. She had also referred the mother for local mental health supports and counselling. The mother remained heightened and triggered, and the children were removed in June. The parents blamed the social worker for the difficulties they encountered.
The social worker said they had made an application for an initial interim care order, but it was withdrawn, and the children were in and out of the grandmother’s care. She said the safety plan was not working and the children were scared and worried. The grandmother had offered to stay with her daughter when there was no electricity and no food available. The social worker said if the children were with their grandmother the parents stayed together. However, the grandmother worked and therefore the safety plan was going around in circles.
The social worker made a further home visit following upsetting messages from the mother. The house was in a bad condition. There were clothes and rubbish everywhere, including cigarette ash and food waste and there was very little food in the house. The mother was not well, she was triggered by the words mental health and said she had taken a lot of tablets over the weekend but they had not worked. The children were all in their pyjamas and there was a strong smell of urine off the bed linens.
Emergency care order
The social worker called her team leader and told the team leader she was very worried. The team leader contacted the Gardai. The social worker said that mother dragged the children to the kitchen and the mother was lying on the floor screaming and shouting. When the Gardai were called to invoke a Section 12 she was calm and then became heightened.
The father arrived to the house and he was crying. The children then became heightened. The mother was throwing objects. The social worker carried one of the children out and the child was calmer in the car. The emergency care order application was heard in the Criminal Courts of Justice building.
The social worker said that the children were placed with general foster carers and
she had visited with them in recent days and had brought clothes for them. The placement was available up to the time that the foster carers, who were emergency foster carers, were due to go on their holidays. This was essentially a period of two weeks.
The children wanted to see their parents and a short phone call was arranged. The social worker said the day the children were removed from the house was a very difficult day for the children. She said that the father had applied for custody. The social work team would support it if he was able to recognise the worries the CFA had and demonstrate that he was a safe person, but he had not of his own initiative taken any steps in relation to the food situation or schooling.
The social worker said that the mother was transparent but the father chose not to share his worries. She said that there were financial difficulties in the household and the father was in and out of work. The father said he supported the family and at times he did get food but not much food.
Interim care order application
The social worker was asked why she was seeking a section 17 interim care order and she said that the children’s safety and welfare was at risk.
On cross examination reference was made to the supports that had been made available to the family including the GP, the public health nurse, the home care team, summer clubs and Dublin Safer Families, which the mother did not attend.
The social worker said that the mother made promises but there was no follow up. Reference was also made to a voucher that the family received from St Vincent de Paul where they could go every Friday to collect the food package and the voucher. They would get the support worker to get the voucher and a taxi had been offered.
She said that the mother had difficulties accepting services. She had not considered engaging an advocate as the barrier was cannabis not communication.
The social worker said a child protection conference was held where the safety score was five and action steps were outlined as a result of that. Roadmaps were agreed and a request made that the mother be honest about her cannabis use and about domestic violence. She had also referred her to Dublin Safer Families for domestic violence issues but she had not engaged with them. The parent’s response was that the safety network had let her down.
The social worker also referred to abusive and threatening messages which she had received on the day of the hearing.
Cross-examining the social worker, the barrister for the father referred to the child protection conferences and the fact that there was not an interpreter present all the time. The social worker said that the father refused an interpreter. She referred to the safety plan stating that he was not to stay in the house due to fighting, but he was there at times.
The barrister said that the father at times supported the school runs and there were transport links between the areas where he lived and the area where the children went to school. The social worker said they had concerns about his ability to prioritise the children over his own needs and that he was smoking cannabis. The social worker’s view was that the father had a traditional view of what a father should be, which was to provide financially, but he was not transparent and the parties were vulnerable and complex.
In relation to their non-attendance at school, the reason the parents had given was that the mother was unwell and there was no money for taxis to get to school. This was having a negative impact on the children. There had been meetings between the parents and the grandmother about practical steps around getting them to school. In relation to the condition of the family home, there was a cycle where it was dirty and then cleaned up and then messy. A clean and consistent environment was needed.
The CFA solicitor referred to the package of supports that were available to the family which included financial supports and food packages from the St Vincent de Paul. On cross examination the CFA solicitor asked the mother about the abusive messages that had been sent to the social worker, which were being hurtful. The mother said she was frustrated about the situation.
GAL evidence
The guardian ad litem was asked to give a pen picture portrait of the family. She described the boy as being hyper-vigilant who would walk around on his tippy toes. He was pleasant and chatty but anxious and his speech was indistinct.
The GAL indicated that she had had contact with the mother and had taken time to meet her in the home. When she was in the house there were clothes all over the sitting room and she said the mother had told her she had been to the Gardai about rape allegations. The mother admitted she was struggling but said she loved her children and was let down by domestic violence. She said she had a lot going on, was finding it hard and was overwhelmed. The GAL said there were black bags and clothes everywhere and there were marks on the doors and on the walls.
She said the children had asked her about new furniture and she said it was unusual for children to ask about furniture. The GAL spoke about conversations which she had had with the father and contact with him, but he did not accept the worries or that there were any difficulties. The children said they had heard shouting and fighting.
The GAL said there was a lack of predictability, stability and consistency. She said the children were scared and domestic violence was a huge issue. She said supports only worked for people who accept support and the father did not accept support.
She said the mother needed support for her mental health. Her observation of the family home was that there was a lack of food. The younger child took comfort from his sister. He said that there was a lot of food in his foster home but not in his house. The GAL pointed out the foster placement was only available until the foster carers went their holidays.
The GAL said that an assessment of need was required for the children. She said the youngest child could not say certain letters and was not clear for his age and the fact that he was walking on his tippy toes indicated that he was hypervigilant. She also said he had sensory issues as he liked crunchy food. She said there needed to be strict undertaking regarding access and that the parents needed to manage their own regulation. She said a memorandum of understanding was also required and the children needed to have their names on the list.
The solicitor asked the GAL about the eldest child missing the end of school. The GAL said that the child had been upset that she had not seen her teacher before school finished for the summer but the GAL said that she now needed a period of stability and perhaps arrangements could be made over the summer for the child to see her teacher and maybe send her a card.
In relation to access the GAL said that access should start slowly and build up. She said there had to be clear expectations about access and the parents needed to travel to where the children were for access. In relation to the father, she said that emotional stability and routine were required.
In summary the GAL said that that access needed to happen separately for the parents as there were difficulties when the parents were together.
The judge said he knew that both parents loved and adored their children. However, the primary concern was the safety, health and welfare of the children. He said supports had been offered, there had been a significant lack of engagement, the parents were utterly oblivious to the safety issues and there was a catalogue of domestic violence issues. He said that the text messages that had been sent over lunch to the social worker were both threatening and disturbing.
The judge was satisfied to grant the interim care order and granted it for 28 days. He said that the parents were to fully engage in an appropriate way, and they had every opportunity to engage but the parents had been tone-deaf to the concerns to date.