A judge in Dublin District Court made an order that neither of a teenager’s parents should contact the child, on pain of committing an offence, and a further order dispensing with parental consent for media notifications in the event of the child going missing, which happened regularly. An interim care order was in place, and a special care application was also in progress.
The court heard that the child was engaged in drug use and regularly left her placement to join her father. The court heard that the child’s father had admitted an addiction to heroin and had declined to engaged in services. He was also engaged in criminal and antisocial behaviour, which one of the children had been drawn into.
The CFA solicitor said that the father’s involvement with his daughter was impeding her engagement with services. When she went missing she often joined him. The CFA was applying to suspend contact in the short term with the child’s father and to have any contact approved and supervised by the CFA. The CFA was also seeking a penal endorsement on the order.
The CFA solicitor spoke about a previous time when the child went missing and significant efforts were made to look for her. Enquires were made with her extended family who professed not to know where she was. It turned out that she had stayed with these family members and they had conspired to mislead the CFA in relation to the child’s whereabouts.
The GAL said that she was supporting both of the CFA’s applications. She said that she was eagerly awaiting the decision of the Special Care Committee. The GAL strongly believed that special care was necessary. She believed that the child used ecstasy and heroin. The child left drug paraphernalia around her room, which had been perceived as a cry for help. The child was consistently going missing and being returned to her care placement by gardai.
The judge agreed that the situation was very concerning. She asked whether the father’s behaviour represented a criminal offence of child endangerment and whether matters had been referred to the gardaí. She also outlined that section 46 of the 1991 Act might be relevant in both securing the return of the child to care and prosecuting family members who were causing her to go missing.
The social worker told the court that the child had gone missing on a regular basis and media reports were needed to secure her return. She said the CFA had trouble contacting the child’s parents during these incidents and after the revelations about family members misleading the agency in relation to the child’s location, they lacked confidence that the family would cooperate with them. The social worker said the child required the absence of interference from her family in order to engage positively with staff and services in her care placement. The social worker said that her father rang the child and the residential centre on a regular basis and appeared to put pressure on the child to leave the centre and meet with him.
The social worker said a Garda strategy meeting had taken place in relation to the child the previous week and another one would be organised soon. She said that the Gardaí in a city centre station were very familiar with her. The social worker acknowledged that an order from the court preventing the father from contacting the child, with a penal endorsement, could put greater pressure on the child from the father. However, she felt that the danger posed to the child by the father’s interventions, drug use and involvement with criminality outweighed these concerns and necessitated a response.
The judge said that it was clear that the father was a “bad man”. She read from a report which described the father’s abuse of the child which allegedly involved her being falsely imprisoned and beaten for multiple days. She said that there was a serious allegation of domestic violence against the father in respect of his own mother. She noted that the child had expressed her preference to stay in the custody of her father. She expressed a view that a referral should be made to the gardaí.
The social worker said that extensive discussions had taken place within the social work team. The judge said the child must be absolutely terrified of the father and he appeared to be exercising coercive control over her, albeit that coercive control was presently only legally defined as occurring between current or former intimate partners.
The GAL spoke about her escalating concern for the child given her heroin use. She recounted a time when the child was found by staff in the residential centre in a deep sleep from which she could not be roused. She said that the application to the special care committee was pending and should it be approved, the child might be left waiting for a special care placement for some time.
The judge asked the parties if consideration had been made in terms of applying for an order regulating the child’s phone use. The GAL said that it was not being considered at this time as the child’s accessibility via phone had been helpful in periods where she went missing.
The judge made the orders sought by the CFA. She made a section 37 order stating that neither parent make direct or indirect contact with the child. If this contact occurred, both parents were to notify the social work department. She made a section 47 order dispensing with the need for parental consent for media notifications. The judge clarified that a warning would be required to the recipient of an order with a penal endorsement.
The judge also made a section 47 direction dispensing with parental consent for the child to be interviewed by gardaí concerning allegations she had made. The judge said she wanted the child to know that she had heard what had been said on her behalf and she wanted her to know that the court took these things very seriously and that as a child and as a child in care she enjoyed the protection of the state.