A judge in Dublin District Court made an interim care order for a child who was staying with his grandmother, who had been approved as a relative foster carer. The parents consented.
Counsel for the mother said that a parental capacity assessment (PCA) had been undertaken by the mother but she had yet to receive feedback and was anxious to get it. Counsel for the CFA said she would receive it.
The social worker said she believed the threshold for the order had been met. She said the child was very happy and comfortable in his placement with his grandmother. She said the placement required more support than most, but the CFA was committed to making it work. The social worker told the court that they wanted to facilitate the mother’s access, but they were still considering whether this could be supervised by the grandmother or if professional supervision was required.
The social worker said that the child was eager to have access with his siblings who were also in care. There were plans to arrange access on the child’s birthday and to have a birthday party at a leisure centre. She said it was the CFA’s intention to establish sibling access through the siblings’ respective foster parents socialising together.
The social worker told the court that she had explored the idea of reestablishing between the child and his father, but the child had reacted very negatively to this. He was upset that the social worker brought gifts and cards from his father to his grandmother’s house. The social worker said she would continue to broach the issue.
The social worker told the court that a hair follicle test has been arranged for the mother and would happen shortly. The mother’s counsel said that she was starting a pre-treatment programme in a drug treatment centre shortly and had done a hair follicle test recently. At the request of the mother the test had been delayed for a week. She said the CFA would undertake to give the mother any supports she needed to assist her in parenting.
The GAL told the court she supported the CFA’s application. She told the court she had spoken to the child about the application and he did not have strong feelings about it as he would continue to live with his grandmother anyway. She emphasised the child’s desire to see his siblings. The GAL said that the child had always been clear that his preference was to live with his mother. The judge said that the application first came before the court almost a year earlier. She said this was an unacceptable delay which was “highly unsatisfactory”. The judge asked whether the delay was caused because there was no placement for the child who was already living with his grandmother, prior to her being approved, and the CFA did not want to take him out of the home.