A judge in the District Court in a provincial city refused to grant a second six-month supervision order for two children because there had been a fundamental change in the conditions underlying the existing six-month supervision order.
He said that the existing six-month supervision order had been granted, and the Child and Family Agency’s (CFA’s) previous applications for an interim care order and care order had been withdrawn, on the understanding that the children’s mother was returning to her home country in Eastern Europe and would not be returning to live with the children in their home. He said that because the mother had changed her position in that regard, he would not grant a further six-month supervision order.
The existing supervision order was due expire at the end of the following month. He granted liberty to the CFA to apply for an interim care order and care order in respect of the two children.
Both parents were present in the court and each had their own legal representation.
There were two young boys of primary school-going age in the family. The solicitor for the CFA said that the two boys had been exposed to a very difficult parental relationship and there were particular concerns for the elder boy who had become very dysregulated as a result of his home life. The solicitor told the court that progress had been slow despite the existing supervision order and the CFA had still been receiving concerning reports about the elder boy from the school.
The mother’s solicitor told the court that she accepted that there had been a background of animosity between the parents but that both parents recognised the need to iron out their differences for the boys.
He said that, at that time, the mother was residing at a domestic violence refuge, but that it was a short-term emergency accommodation service and that she would be becoming homeless. He said that there had been some useful communications between the parents. He asked the court if the mother could be allowed to have contact with boys in the family home, supervised if necessary. He said that the mother had a sister living in Northern Ireland who was willing to supervise access with the boys. He added that there was a distinct possibility that the mother would consent to the supervision order.
He said that if there were to be any directions or conditions made in respect of an order, these could be explored during the hearing of the application.
The CFA’s solicitor told the court that if mother returned to the family home, the CFA would return to court to apply for an interim care order.
The father’s solicitor told the court that the father was consenting to a supervision order being granted for a further six months. She said that the children were at home but he did not accept that there was any difficulty. She said that the father had done all that had been asked of him to improve the lot of the boys. However, the mother had not done that. He said that the boys were improving and were not causing huge problems but that the father would welcome input for a further six months.
The judge adjourned the matter briefly to allow for further discussions between the parties.
When the matter resumed, the allocated social worker for the two boys gave her evidence to the court. She had previously given evidence to the court to ground the application for the first supervision order approximately five months earlier.
She said prior to the first supervision order being granted, the social work department had received several referrals in respect of the boys witnessing domestic violence in the home and, in one case, one of the boys had deep scratches which he alleged had been caused by his mother. The first supervision order had been granted on the condition that the boys’ mother would not live in the home. At the time the mother had indicated to the social work department that she was going to return to her home country. However, she had since advised the social work department that she wanted to stay in Ireland and return to the family home.
The social worker said that the mother continuously presented with a lot of anger towards services and the CFA. It was only in very recent times that she had presented differently. The mother did not accept that she had harmed her elder son on any occasion. She had given a different version of events. She had said that the scratches on her son’s neck did not occur at all and the scratches on his arm had been caused by her defending herself against him.
The elder boy had had two assessments but he had not been diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD). She said that his disruptive behaviours were stemming from exposure to traumas. He would benefit from psychological report.
A case conference had been organised five months earlier. It had been attended by teachers from the school and the parents. Both parents had agreed to engage with parental supports. The father had agreed to do life story work with the children. The mother had subsequently attended the mental health service.
However, there was no certainty regarding the future of the parents’ relationship. The mother did not accept the concerns of the social work department. There were also domestic violence concerns. The father had accepted that he had engaged in some physical abuse of his elder son. He also accepted that he had been emotionally abusive and controlling.
The social worker said that there was notable tension between the parents. They could not reach an agreement regarding the future of their relationship and there had been no agreement regarding a safety plan. She said that there had been three further referrals since the first supervision order had been granted.
One of the referrals related to the mother attending a domestic violence service. A second referral was from a school teacher regarding emotional abuse being experienced by the elder boy. The elder boy had told the teacher about his mother being outside of his home, he had said she was shouting and lying about his father and his father had been pulling the mother’s hair. The elder boy was with his younger brother when he was describing this to the teacher. However, when he had realised that he had said too much, he became very tense. The younger brother had been very shocked about what he had heard.
The third referral related to concerns that the elder brother had been causing difficulties with other children. The boy had been highly distressed and he had attacked a girl in the school. She said that there had been a history of issues with the boy since he had been quite young. Other parents of children in the school had been asking why this had been allowed and why nothing had been done.
She said that the family had originally come from an eastern European country and they had had no family network to support them.
When the judge enquired how all of this had been impacting on the young boy, the social worker replied that the boy’s day was quite restricted. Since the most recent incident, the boy had only been attending school from 12 noon in the day. The big concerns were when he was in a mainstream class as he became easily dysregulated. The school had accommodated him by having a one-to-one teacher time with him but it could not accommodate this for the entire school day. She added that the boy was very intelligent but that he did not have opportunities to make friendships and that this had added to his dysregulation. He had also been prevented from engaging in the after-school service as the staff there could not manage him.
The boy had engaged with play therapy since the last court date. He had been referred by his GP and had attended 10 sessions so far. However, he had continued to be very closed off when discussing his mother and became very dysregulated. He had once soiled himself.
The mother’s solicitor objected to this evidence being admitted on the basis of hearsay. However, the social worker said that she had had to write to the young boy about the incident. He had been treated by his GP but she had been advised that psychological factors were involved. She said that a referral to psychological services was in place for the boy but that there was a very long waiting list.
She said that the other brother was two years younger. He had a different relationship with his mother and often asked for her. He would like to see her and had said in school that he missed her. He would like to have longer term information as to what was going to happen in the future. This younger boy also needed to engage with life story work. He too was attending play therapy and the therapists were building a relationship with him.
Access between the mother and the children had been facilitated on two different occasions. However, the mother was in an isolated position. The access needed to be supervised but the mother had had nobody to facilitate the access to date. She had only just put her sister forward to facilitate access that day but the social worker said that it would be necessary for the CFA to meet with her sister before this could be approved. The mother had been put on the waiting list for supervised access.
The social worker said that the first access visit, which had taken place five months earlier, had not gone well. The older brother had become very dysregulated and had hurt both his mother and brother. The younger brother had been very scared and upset. The boys had only calmed down when their father had come.
The second supervised access visit between the boys and their mother had taken place just before Christmas. She had brought lots of presents, some of which were to be given at the access visit itself and more were to be kept for Christmas day. However, there had been a disagreement about bringing the presents to the father’s car which had delayed the visit.
The younger boy had been very excited. The elder boy had also been very excited initially, but he had become more agitated. The social worker took him out to play outside. He had not been interested in meeting or spending time with his mother.
There was a very long wait list for the access centres, which the mother had sought. She had only recently put forward her sister’s name to facilitate access and unfortunately no one else had been identified. The social worker said that the mother showed no acceptance of any child protection issues and as a result, she was not confident to allow unsupervised access between her and the boys.
The mother had been reluctant to engage with mental health services as she did not accept that she had a mental health diagnosis. She had now accepted that engaging with mental health services did not necessarily mean that she had a psychiatric diagnosis. The social worker said that she was continuing to encourage the mother in this regard.
She said that the boy’s father was continuing to engage with Bernardos. He was working on building some routines at home, putting in place boundaries and consequences for the children when they did not follow the rules. He was building his confidence around parenting and the social worker said that work would be ongoing work for some more months. Other services were being contemplated. The elder boy had been assessed to determine what services might benefit him at school. There were also recommendations that the father should implement with him at home. The school was due to report the following week.
The mother’s solicitor said that other work was ongoing to identify a suitable third party who could facilitate access between the mother and the children. He also said that the mother had recently engaged with her GP to get a referral to mental health services.
Regarding the mother’s proposal to return to the family home, the social worker said that she did not believe that there was enough of a safety plan in place to protect the elder boy. The CFA had looked to place cameras in the home but the mother had objected to this. The mother had not done enough meaningful work and there did not seem to be any change in the family circumstances that had given rise to the CFA considering a care order previously.
The social worker said that if the mother returned to the family home she believed the CFA would seek an interim care order for the children. She said that the supervision order had only been granted because the mother had agreed to stay out of the home. The CFA would view the situation very seriously if the mother returned to the family home.
The judge asked if the mother had explained to the social work department why she was not returning to her home country. The social worker said that the mother had been advised by her health team to stay in Ireland to allow her access health services here. The mother needed to attend hospital regularly. The mother had also said that she had wanted to stay to see more of her children.
The mother’s solicitor asked the social worker whether she agreed, in her experience, that the disagreements between the parents were not at the upper barring order level. The social worker said that she did not agree with that assessment. She said that the children and parents had both alleged serious abuse. The solicitor said that the mother did not accept that there had been physical abuse, only arguing.
The social worker said that both children had actually given accounts of violence. The younger boy had alleged that his mother had scratched his brother’s head and had pulled his father. The solicitor accepted that these allegations were in the social worker’s report but said that both parents had denied engaging in physical abuse. He asked if the younger boy had actually seen these incidents himself. The social worker replied that she had no reason not to believe that the boy had been truthful.
The mother’s solicitor challenged the social worker to say how the three recent referrals related to the mother. With regard to the first referral, she had merely presented herself to a domestic violence refuge. This could not be adversely viewed in respect of the mother. The second referral, relating to alleged abuse in the home, had been flatly denied by the mother and the third referral, which was anonymous, related not to the mother, but to the elder boy physically harming another child. None of these related to anything that the mother had done wrong. The mother had regularly met with allegations of violence and it was her claim that the elder boy had received the scratches on his arm as a result of her having to defend herself.
The social worker said that the mother had denied that the violence had ever happened. She had always flatly denied knowing how the face and neck scratches had occurred as opposed to the scratches on the boy’s arm, which she claimed had been self-defence. The social worker said that she had believed the boy and that he had been consistent throughout.
The solicitor asked the social worker if the boy’s outbursts had been ongoing since an early age. He said that in fact there had been behavioural reports about the older boy since he was two years of age. The social worker agreed that this early incident had been mentioned in the public health nurse’s report. However, the social work department had not received a referral in this regard. She agreed that the younger boy had also been worried about his older brother’s behaviour.
In respect of the mother’s lack of access with the children over the past six months, the social worker said that because there was a high level of concern, access would have to be supervised. She said that the gardaí had sought to interview the children regarding the allegations of assault but the parents had not consented to this. The solicitor said that the mother had consistently denied any assault.
The solicitor said that it seemed to be the case that the elder boy’s behaviour had worsened. The number of people involved had increased and broadened. He said that the recent assaults by the boy had followed several previous incidents. The elder boy was violent and the mother had had to restrain him. The social worker replied that the boy’s mother had always denied to her that the violent incident had happened at all.
The solicitor said the mother claimed that [the scratches on the boy’s neck and head] may have happened by accident. However, the social worker said that this was new information to her and the mother had consistently denied that these injuries had occurred at all.
The social worker agreed with the mother’s solicitor that the lack of access between her and the children was a serious issue. She agreed that there had been a delay in getting psychological treatment for the elder boy to date, but said that the father had now agreed to pay for such treatment privately and she was not sure now if there would be any further delay. She agreed that the boy seriously needed this treatment.
The mother’s solicitor said that her GP had certified that she did not have any mental health illness. However, the mother was suffering from “stiff person’s syndrome”. She did not have any psychotic symptoms but she had experienced significant stress. The solicitor did not wish to put any further expert medical evidence before the court beyond that.
He said that a referral had been made to Barnardos in respect of the whole family. The mother had spoken to one of the support workers and she had also self-referred. The social worker had been aware of the self-referral and said that the social work department would be prepared to look at getting the mother a separate support worker or even another service if that were necessary.
The solicitor said that the mother had been liaising with her husband and that she believed that there were grounds to allow the parents co-exist under the same roof for the boys’ sake. The father had furnished the mother with a set of rules that she was prepared to abide by. The mother’s solicitor sought to give the judge a written document containing the set of rules. The father’s solicitor objected to this document being given to the judge. He said that the mother had not committed to abiding by those rules yet. The CFA’s solicitor also objected to the document being given to the judge on the basis that there was not a full chain of contact for the document.
The judge acknowledged the objections, but said that he would treat the document for what it was.
The mother’s solicitor said that the mother had received these rules from the father. He said that many of the rules would “do good”. The parties had engaged and appeared to be willing to engage in some rules and regulations regarding the mother moving back into the family home.
The social worker said that she had asked the parents to have this discussion many times but that she understood that the parents had not yet agreed to abide by these rules. The solicitor said that the mother was prepared to accept most of these suggestions and there appeared to be a willingness on the part of both parties. He said that the welfare of the boys was paramount and it was in the best interests of the boys that the mother return to live in the family home. The social worker replied that, in the absence of any meaningful work having been done by the mother, the CFA could not accept that she return to the family home. An acceptable safety plan would have to be put in place in advance of a return.
She agreed that the younger boy would have liked to have his mother home. She said that the older boy was presenting as a very traumatised child. However, she could not put time lines on his treatment given that he had not yet met with a psychologist. The solicitor challenged the social worker that it was only in the school’s opinion that the boy was presenting as a traumatised child and they had no expertise to make such an assessment. The social worker did not agree. She said that the school worked with children all the time and regularly worked with children who presented with difficulties.
She agreed with the solicitor that while the elder boy had been assessed, he had not met the threshold for a diagnosis of autism.
The solicitor said that the mother was a lady of significant ability – she had a third level educational qualification and had been a qualified social worker in her home country. She had also obtained further social worker qualifications in Ireland. The father’s solicitor argued that the mother’s qualifications did not further the matter in any way. The mother’s solicitor countered that her qualifications went towards her credibility and showed that she had the intelligence to engage with the situation.
The judge brought an end to the submission of any further evidence to the court. He said that the strenuous objections of the mother had complicated matters. He noted that the CFA had previously applied for an interim care order and care order for the children and had only withdrawn those applications on the basis that the mother was returning to her home country and that she would not be returning to the family home to live with the children. He said that the mother had changed her position in that regard and the new circumstances gave rise to a fundamental change in the conditions underpinning the granting of the previous supervision order.
On that basis, the judge refused to grant a further supervision order. He noted that the existing supervision order would continue for a further month and a half and granted liberty to the CFA to apply for an interim care order and care order in the meantime.