The CFA brought an application before Dublin District Court to amend the terms of an access order made nine years earlier under the care order then granted. The solicitor for the CFA indicated that the terms, including regular access with the father, had been very prescriptive when they had been set out at the time the care order was made. She told the court that in recent months the child had expressed no desire to see her father due to issues between the mother and the father. The child was approaching teenage years.
The solicitor for the CFA said that access had been suspended and therefore it was not in compliance with the terms of the access order made previously. It was noted that previously there had been no issues with access between the child and the father. The CFA solicitor said that the social work team wanted to work on access with the father.
The solicitor for the father said that her client wanted a trajectory as to how access would be promoted. She said that previously her client had enjoyed weekly access. She was very clear that her client was not trying to enforce the order but was looking for a trajectory and was looking for supports to be put in place for him and the child and suggested family therapy. She also stated that in childcare proceedings access was normally at the discretion of the CFA however, in this particular case the access had been court ordered through the judge hearing the care order proceedings.
The court was told that the guardian ad litem was supporting the CFA in their application to bring access back in line with section 37. The court was told that the child had expressly told the guardian, and was adamant in her views, that she no longer wanted to have access with her father and did not want the access to be broached with her. The GAL said that the subject of access was a very delicate one and in fact the order to bring access back in line with section 37 (allowing the CFA to facilitate access as it saw fit) would relieve the pressure on the child. The court was told that access with her mother seemed to be going well.
The judge commented that even if the parties currently in the case were not clear as to why the order had been specifically made by the judge at the time, there must have been reason and rationale for it. The care order had originally been granted some nine years previously.
A clear view had been expressed by the child and if the professionals continually asked the child about her view it could in fact push her away. It was acknowledged that the father had enjoyed access for the previous 12 years but, according to the judge who made the order originally, that access should be child-led. It was the CFA’s position that if the professionals kept going back to ask the child about access that could drive a bigger wedge between the child and her father.
This CFA solicitor said that the case had been re-entered as access had been suspended but the order was clear that the access should be child led.
The solicitor for the father said that she was not looking for the matter of access to be broached with the child all of the time but was looking for a written trajectory with supports to be put in place.
The court was told that the social worker had tried to liaise with the father and did agree that a review might be beneficial regarding access, but the child’s view was currently very clear and an order was not in the child’s best interests.
The judge agreed and said that if that view changed that should be looked into. He said access should be reviewed at each child in care review but an order would not help. He understood the father’s frustration. He said he would vary the order and noted that the next child in care review would be in six months’ time. He said that the access should be child-led and the CFA should continue to review access at the child in care reviews.
He also ordered that that the father be provided with a written trajectory of steps required to be taken by him in order to recommence access. He adjourned the matter to the next review date in six months’ time.