A supervision order was adjourned in Dublin District Court for four children where the parents had prevented the Child and Family Agency (CFA) from completing an assessment. The application was adjourned to allow the parents to engage with the CFA. The family had a long history with the CFA and there was significant distrust between the parties. Both parents were present in court with legal representation. This application was one of 11 heard that day.
The solicitor for the mother told the court that because of the lengthy involvement of the CFA with the family, the CFA’s application contained a significant number of hearsay statements. The solicitor said that the CFA had agreed to omit the hearsay statements. Instead, the judge would hear direct evidence from early 2025 onwards, when the social worker giving evidence had become involved with the family.
The solicitor for the mother informed the court that she was contesting the supervision order on the basis that she could adequately care for her children and was willing to work with the social worker outside a court order.
The barrister for the father told the court that he was not consenting to the application. However, he would allow the children to meet with the social worker in a neutral location, such as a primary care centre, with an independent person present. The barrister for the father suggested that a guardian ad litem (GAL) could be an appropriate independent person and suggested that one should be appointed.
The barrister informed the court that the father had historically had bad experiences with the CFA. The father had reported that the children were doing well in school. One child had sat his Junior Certificate examinations a year early due to his high intelligence. The father wished to avoid a supervision order.
Social work evidence
The social worker was instructed by the CFA solicitor not to reference the family’s entire background with the CFA. The social worker told the court that she had become involved with the family in early 2025. She had received a number of referrals over the following two months.
The CFA had received a referral from the school regarding a child presenting with hygiene concerns and a smell of substances from their school books. The next day a second referral had been made regarding one of the children who had brought two knives into school in their school bag and made threats against the other students. The social worker had received a call from the father who expressed his concerns.
The social worker had attempted to conduct a home visit to meet with the child but was ultimately unable to conduct the assessment. The social worker had explained the assessment process to the family. She had told them that she would contact service professionals, the school and the GP. She had explained that she would explore whether services or supports were needed for the parents. The father had been agreeable for the social worker to meet the children in the house, but the mother had been very emotional and the meeting had collapsed.
A number of days later the social worker had met with the children.
About two weeks later, the social worker had met the father and one of the children. The father had been aggressive and would not sign consent forms on behalf of three children to allow the social worker to seek private information. The social worker had spoken to the child on their own. The child had expressed the view that they didn’t want to be taken out of school.
Allegations of mistreatment had been made against the parents and the social worker had offered to meet with the parents.
Judicial intervention
The judge interrupted the CFA’s evidence. He said that there was significant mistrust between the parents and the CFA, but the family could not continue to live in the past. The judge said that the social worker was required to enter the house to complete an assessment and there was no way around it. The family must let the social worker into the house.
The judge said that the father was focusing only on the past issues with the CFA. He explained that the CFA had to be satisfied that there were no concerns in relation to the four children. The only way to do this was for the CFA to do their assessment on foot of the provisions of the Child Care Act and then return to court with that report. The judge said that there could be no preconditions to this assessment.
The judge appointed a GAL to the children. She asked the parents to allow the social worker into the home without shouting or going on about the past. The judge said that the GAL and the CFA were to be allowed to carry out their assessments and the parents were not to involve the children or to discuss the matter with them.
The judge asked the social worker how long it would take the CFA to complete the assessment. The social worker said it took 40 working days. The barrister for the father asked that there would be no unannounced visits by the social worker.
The judge adjourned the application for the supervision order to allow the CFA to complete its assessment. The parents were instructed to cooperate with the CFA and the social worker. The judge ordered that there be no unannounced visits. He appointed a GAL to the children and the parents were each appointed an advocate.