A supervision order was granted by a judge in the Dublin Metropolitan District for a teenager who had previously been in the care of his maternal grandparent but had returned to the care of his mother due to the ill-health of the grandparent. The teenager’s father lived abroad and had initiated private family law proceedings seeking to have the teenager relocate to his country of residence.
The CFA solicitor informed the court that there were four children in the home and that the teenager was not attending school and was getting involved with a bad crowd locally.
The CFA were looking for a supervision order for a period of three months. They were anxious to state that they wanted to work with the family to figure out what was best. The CFA solicitor said they had significant concerns about the relationship between the mother and the teenager and her ability to manage the situation.
The mother was legally represented but she was not present in court due to medical issues. The court was told she was maintaining a neutral position regarding the supervision order. The court heard that the teenager had indicated that he wanted to go and stay with his grandfather but that was not an option as the grandfather was terminally ill.
The mother was supportive of the teenager going to father’s country of residence for a holiday over the summer for a couple of weeks, but not for two months. The mother had enrolled him in school. The court heard that it was a very busy household but that the mother had a supportive partner.
The mother’s solicitor said he had explained to his client the impact a supervision order would have on the household and she understood this. She understood that the social workers could call out unannounced and that there were would be an intrusion of services but she appreciated that there were difficulties with the teenager which needed to be addressed. The court heard that the mother had been referred by her GP for therapy services herself.
The mother supported a holiday to see the father for a set period of time but wanted to ensure that flight and passport details were exchanged.
The father was legally represented and was supporting the supervision order. However, he was not in a position to leave where he was living and return to Ireland as he was on a bridging visa. The court was told that further arrangements would need to be put in place if the teenager was to visit him as the teenager had never been on a plane.
The solicitor for the GAL said that the GAL had only recently been appointed and needed some time to meet with the teenager and get up to speed on the case. She had concerns regarding the complexity of the child care and family law proceedings and welcomed the efforts of the CFA in trying to negotiate a holiday for the teenager.
The judge said the supervision order was an appropriate order. He noted the fact that the household was a busy one and also there was a complexity attaching to the case due to the private family law proceedings. He noted that the teenager had previously been in care and had returned home and that he was now not engaging and was in with a bad crowd. He said the case should come back before the court in four weeks for review and he granted the supervision order for a period of eight weeks.