The judge in a provincial city District Court granted a youth permission to travel with his friend, also a minor, to another European country to stay with his grandmother for two weeks.
The youth had come into the care of the Child and Family Agency (CFA) about eight months earlier, as a result of difficulties arising between him and his mother and her new partner. The youth’s mother refused to allow him back in the family home. The youth was being accommodated by the CFA at the time of the hearing.
The youth, an older teenager, was represented in court by a solicitor in his own right. The solicitor had been appointed by the court the previous week to facilitate the making of this application for leave to travel on his behalf.
The youth’s solicitor told the court that the youth had attended the initial appointment with her on time and that he had appeared to her to be an impressive young man. He wanted to go to his country of origin in Europe to visit his grandmother. He had return flights booked.
At the meeting, she had discussed with the youth the CFA’s understandable concerns with him travelling without an accompanying adult. She said that the youth wished to address the court himself. This could be done without the youth being formally sworn in as a witness. However, he fully understood the significance of taking an oath and that lying to the court was an offence. The youth was due to turn 18 years of age later in the year.
The youth had provided the CFA’s solicitor with a copy of his travel itinerary. He was travelling with another person who was also under 18 years of age. The solicitor provided the judge with an email from the youth’s grandmother, which had been translated into English using Google Translate.
This email confirmed that the writer was the youth’s grandmother and that she was delighted that the two youths would come to visit. She wrote that she would pick the youths up from the airport and also bring them back to the airport for their return to Ireland. In response to the CFA’s concern regarding garda vetting, the solicitor showed the judge the grandmother’s application to the relevant authorities to obtain the equivalent of garda vetting. She was due to receive confirmation of her vetting shortly.
The solicitor told the court that the youth appreciated the CFA’s concerns. He understood that the CFA had a duty of care to him and that the matter was for the judge to decide. She said that the youth had made the trip before and noted that he was not far off reaching his majority.
The judge addressed the youth and said that there was no need to swear him in and that he could stay sitting in the main body of the court. He asked the youth to confirm why he wished to travel. The youth did not know his grandmother’s address off the top of his head, but he said that it was on the itinerary. He confirmed to the judge that he had travelled to see his grandmother by himself the previous year. Noone else lived with his grandmother and she had three rooms in her apartment. He described to the judge how he intended to get to and from the airport. He said that the social worker had not gone into detail regarding her concerns, but had told him that it was his choice to make the application to the court or not.
He confirmed that his solicitor had gone through the social worker’s report which detailed her concerns. When the judge asked him to explain what his understanding of the CFA’s concerns were, he replied that the CFA “had a lot of kids to take care of” and that allowing him to travel to a different country had “a lot to do with trust”.
The judge said that one concern that had been raised in the social worker’s report was that he had returned to his supported lodgings under influence of alcohol and maybe drugs. The youth told the judge that yes, he had been under the influence of alcohol but not drugs, “not ever”.
Another concern had been his failure to abide by the curfew of 11 pm. The youth accepted that there had been times that he had failed to return to his lodgings before the curfew. He said that normally, if he was late, he would just communicate with the woman with whom he was staying. Most of the time he did that, but there had been one or two occasions where he had not done so.
The judge asked the youth what assurance he would provide the court about complying with the curfew between now and his departure date. The youth told the judge that he would make sure that he was always in on time and that he would improve his communication.
The youth told the judge that he was not currently in school. He had been employed in two previous jobs. One in traffic management and another in a fast food outlet. He had been with the fast food outlet for about seven months and had had also been with them subsequently for a further month or two.
Regarding the CFA’s concern that he might not return to Ireland, the youth replied that he had the flights booked and that he had friends and his whole life here in Ireland. He said: “It’s to go and see my grandmother and show my friend around”.
The youth also said that his grandmother had agreed to make herself available for a video calls during the visit so that the CFA would know where he was and what he was doing. He confirmed that his grandmother was ok with this.
The judge asked the youth how far he had gone with his schooling. The youth replied that he had attended as far as Junior Certificate. He did well in those exams and had failed English higher level only. He had decided that he did not wish to pursue further education because he wanted to make some money and because he was not good at school.
The youth told the court that he was interested in enlisting in the army (in his country of origin). As he was not an Irish citizen, he was not entitled to enlist in the Irish army. Apart from this, he was also interested in an apprenticeship to become a mechanic, but he had not taken any steps in that regard yet.
At the time of the hearing, the youth told the judge that he was working for himself running his own business of window cleaning and pressure washing. It was going well.
He confirmed that on the previous occasion on which he travelled, he had had no issues with boarding or passport control. On his way back to Ireland, he had been questioned why he had been travelling alone, but had told the authorities that he was returning home and no further credentials or documentation had been requested. He confirmed that the friend with whom he would be travelling was also 17 years of age.
Following some deliberation, the judge said that he had no difficulty with the youth travelling. He thanked him for making the application and wished him the best with his journey.