A judge in Dublin District Cort refused an application by the Child and Family Agency (Tusla) for a supervision order for six months despite consent from the parents, and cited significant concerns that needed to be addressed and might require a care order. Instead, the judge granted a supervision order for only three weeks and ordered the completion of expert reports pursuant to Section 27, Child Care Act 1991.
The application related to a 17 year-old-girl living at home with her father. There were significant concerns relating to neglect and emotional abuse. There had been a history of concern relating to controlling behaviours from the father, and domestic violence in the home. A supervision order had been granted in September 2025, with conditions attached requiring the family to engage with the social work department, to engage with school and ensure school attendance and to increase the child’s activities outside of the home. The Child and Family Agency had come to court to seek a further six-month supervision order and the parents were consenting to this.
The social work team leader gave evidence about how the order was being complied with and about a strategy meeting that had taken place in the month before the court hearing. Attendance at school was described as patchy. It was stated that while the family engaged with the social work department, this was still limited and cautious.
The young person was described by the social work team leader as well spoken, but careful about how she spoke and what she said. The team leader stated that there had been some positive changes for the young person, but that there was still a need for systemic family change.
The judge asked was an interim care order required to protect the young person and asked the team leader if this had been considered. The social work team leader stated that they were concerned about the impact of removal from the home on the young person, in particular as she presented as neurodivergent and there were concerns in the social work department that such a move would be more detrimental to the young person than it would be beneficial.
The social work team leader outlined that the only diagnosis for the young person had been conducted by a person who later admitted to faked qualifications in relation to other cases. The judge expressed their concern that the young person had a lot of needs, and was further concerned that the parents were leaving this young person with such high needs without any support. The social work team leader underlined that there was room to work with the young person in their family and that this approach remained the best course of action for the child.
The judge stated that she had to determine if there was evidence to determine if the supervision order was necessary and proportionate. The judge stated that she wanted to hear evidence from a psychologist who had been working with the family and that had attended the recent strategy meeting. The judge further stated that “if the Agency does not call [the psychologist] to give evidence I was will have to give consideration as to how to assess this application.”
The judge also noted with concern that the young person was not in court but there were reports that the young person was not in school. The court directed social workers to facetime the young person, to assess if she was in school and if not where she was. The court adjourned the case to deal with other matters while the agency was to consider its witnesses and how best to establish contact with the young person themselves.
On returning to the case the social work team leader gave evidence that the social work team had facetimed the young person and that they had missed school today due to an sore leg. Today was a school outing and given the sore leg the young person was unable to participate and so had been excused attendance.
The solicitor for the social work department stated that they would not call the psychologist to give evidence. The judge expressed her concern that there was disguised compliance in the case and that underneath the abuse was continuing.
The judge stated: “I know the author of Signs of Safety does not accept disguised compliance, but I do and I am concerned that this is happening in this case.” The social work team leader gave evidence that they were very experienced at monitoring family situations and stated: “If I believed that the situation is anything less than fully collaborative the social work department would act.”
The guardian ad litem gave evidence stating she believed that the family were very skilled at keeping services at bay. The guardian ad litem gave evidence that it was very difficult to meet with the young person and when they did meet, the young person presented as very coached in what she had to say and appeared to take on her mother’s views as her own. The guardian ad litem stated that it was her concern that the mother’s mental health would not improve, but that there was no acceptance from the family in relation to this. The guardian ad litem stated that they were deeply concerned about drift in this case and that the needs of the young person were not being met.
The judge stated that she was deeply concerned about this case, in particular concerned about the risk of disguised compliance and fabricated illnesses to keep services away. The judge stated: “[the young person] is being withheld from achieving her full potential and has been before the courts for some time with no real change.” The judge stated again that she had to determine if the supervision order was necessary and proportionate, and went on to say they were concerned it was not a proportionate response as it would seem an interim care order would be more appropriate. The judge granted as order for three weeks and ordered a report from the psychologist involved already pursuant to Section 27, Child Care Act 1991.
Following the decision the judge addressed the father stating: “I am keeping a close eye on this case, I want to see meaningful cooperation, not just ticking boxes. I am concerned and sceptical about the level of illness reported to avoid meetings, engagement with professional is not progress, it is the bare minimum.”