A District Court judge re-entered a case after a young teenage girl had absconded from her foster placement for more than two weeks. Previous directions under s.47 of the Childcare Act 1991 had been made, and the re-entry followed a material change in the child’s placement. She had absconded on numerous previous occasions, travelling to other locations with her boyfriend. The foster carers refused to take her back due to concerns for her safety. She was placed in temporary residential care and no other placement was available.
Day One
At the outset, the court heard that the child’s grandmother was not present because she was not a native English speaker and the arranged interpreter was unavailable. The judge said that in ordinary circumstances she would adjourn for an interpreter, but she could not do so because of serious concerns for the child.
The social worker told the court that the child had not returned from school several weeks earlier. The foster carer had reported her missing to An Garda Síochána that day, but the child had not been located for a further 17 days. The foster carer, who had two younger children in the home, had then said she could no longer care for the girl.
The social worker told the court that when the child was located Gardaí had taken her to a private emergency foster placement for eight nights. The child had since moved to an external residential unit where staff members transported her each day to secondary school. The child disliked school and faced Christmas exams shortly.
When asked what the child did in her free time, the social worker reported concerns regarding their ability to supervise her. Staff had supervised her until 5pm on a recent Friday when she had been unwell. The situation was further hampered by the fact that the child’s youth worker, who had previously supported her, was on leave.
The social worker told the court that the child had recently attended her General Practitioner with chest pains. An ECG and further tests had been recommended. The child was subsequently taken to Accident & Emergency, and a clinical examination had shown distress rather than a physical cause for her symptoms. The child had poor sleep, despite being placed on melatonin, and remained constantly tired.
Efforts to find a new placement had failed. No general foster placement had been identified through private providers. An application to the national residential placement team had been unsuccessful to date because no placements were available. The child had said she wanted a family of her own nationality because she did not feel Irish people were “her people”. Efforts to advertise to facilitate this had produced no results.
The child’s grandmother, who had previously cared for her, now lived in a small hotel room and could not have the child returned to her. The grandmother had avoided meetings with the CFA out of fear the child would be placed back with her, but recent emails had shown she was more open to meeting again.
The Child and Family Agency (CFA) lawyer referred to the guardian ad litem (GAL) report, which said there was no secure placement and the child was struggling in the foster care system. The social worker agreed. The child often spoke about her future, engaged well with support, and wanted to pursue further education.
The social worker said that when the child had returned from absconding, she had said she was happy in the placement but could not explain why she had run away. The GAL had reported that the child had expressed remorse but remained at risk of absconding again. The GAL recommended therapeutic support.
The social worker said counselling with Jigsaw had been planned but the absconding had prevented it. The GAL also recommended every effort be made to obtain a stable placement without delay. The social worker said this issue had been raised with upper management, but sourcing placements was incredibly difficult.
The judge asked where the child had been during the absconding. The social worker said she had been with her boyfriend and they had travelled away together. The judge asked if the CFA knew what the child had done during that time, but the social worker said she did not know.
The GAL’s lawyer confirmed with the social worker that external staff and CFA staff rotated every three days in the current placement. The social worker agreed a plan was needed for Christmas. When asked about potential friends or family, the social worker said the child had no friends at school. Special emergency arrangements (SEAs) had been discussed, as had boarding school. The judge interjected that boarding school would not be available before Christmas.
The judge described the child as “very vulnerable”. She said the child had been uncontactable while missing and was now in an external facility, which could not continue and was not sustainable. The judge said the child could not return to her grandmother and, in her early teens, needed other options.
The social worker said a facility for older children was also under consideration, but the child was too young. Weekly contact continued with the national placement team. The judge asked about contact with a social worker from Barnardos who shared the child’s nationality. The CFA then called a second social worker to give evidence.
The second social worker confirmed contact had been made with the Barnardos social worker, who had been asked to assist in sourcing a suitable placement. The regional fostering department had been contacted. The general consensus was that the child was suitable for foster placement as she had no behavioural issues beyond absconding. The child was on the national placement team list, and boarding schools were being explored.
The court was told that CFA management was reluctant to consider special care, as it did not fit the child’s profile, and they preferred a family setting. A boarding school had been identified at an early stage. The setting would need high supervision, and the grandmother’s increased willingness to engage was also positive.
Under questioning from the GAL’s lawyer, the second social worker confirmed a foster placement would still be needed, alongside boarding school. When asked about the child’s priority, the social worker said the system was complicated. The lawyer suggested the child’s suitability for foster placement might leave her overlooked by the national placement team. The social worker disagreed and said the national placement team received weekly updates and would be notified of vacancies.
The lawyer noted the child had done well in the initial emergency placement after absconding. The social worker confirmed this but said it was only available for s.12 emergencies on a roster. When asked about Christmas, the social worker said that in these cases, it could take 10 to 12 weeks for some young people to secure a suitable placement, with no guarantees. She planned to contact the grandmother again to arrange a meeting. The judge interjected that this should happen within the next week.
The judge said the current situation was not sustainable or appropriate, with the child in an external placement and different people there every night. There was no guarantee for Christmas or beyond, the child’s safety was at risk and it needed resolution within a week. The judge noted the absconding had not been brought to her attention previously. She amended the section 47 directions to require re-entry if the child absconded for more than 24 hours and her location was unknown. The case was listed for full review the following week.
Day two
The case returned before the court a week later. The interpreter for the child’s grandmother made himself known to the judge. However, the lawyer for the grandmother informed the judge that the grandmother was not present in court. She said she had made numerous efforts to contact her but the grandmother’s phone was switched off. In the circumstances, the interpreter was not sworn in and the judge advised him he would not be needed.
The CFA lawyer asked the social worker for an update on the situation regarding a placement. The social worker replied that she had identified a family foster placement for the child for the week of Christmas. She had no success in obtaining a further placement once that week ended.
The social worker said the child continued to remain in the temporary residential placement. Efforts had been made to make contact with her grandmother who indicated she was not seeking the return of the child to her care. The social worker said it was her opinion that a placement with carers who shared the child’s nationality would have been the best solution. The child strongly indicated her preference for this, saying that the previous foster carers were not “her people”. A campaign to seek such a carer was advertised online without any reply. A request had also been made at a recent regional meeting seeking potential contacts.
The CFA lawyer asked if the child absconded on a regular basis and the social worker replied that she had not absconded since the most recent occasion. The judge said this may be due to the fact that she was behind closed gates in the residential facility. The social worker informed the judge that the child had a boyfriend of her own age and that she had previously absconded from her placement on a number of occasions. She had travelled with her boyfriend to other provincial towns and cities. This had had a detrimental effect on her placement in the foster home, which also cared for two other children.
The CFA lawyer asked what the desired outcome was in this case. The social worker replied that they would continue to liaise with colleagues regarding foster placements but that there was currently nothing available for the week after Christmas. Weekly meetings were held to explore possibilities and daily contacts were made with the national placement team. The social worker described her efforts to contact boarding schools. She had been in touch with 15 boarding schools. So far, all the replies were negative, with some schools saying they could not take a student in the middle of a school year.
The GAL’s lawyer asked if there would still be difficulties even if the child’s grandmother agreed to take her in and the social worker confirmed that was her opinion. The lawyer said the addition of a baby to the previous foster placement was a cause of further stress for the child. The judge asked where the child would go once Christmas week was over and the social worker said she would be returned to the current temporary residential placement but that there were a number of days when the centre was closed. On those days the child’s care would be looked after by the out-of-hours social workers. The judge asked about a potential emergency placement and the social worker stressed that there were none available.
The judge expressed her extreme concern that the child had absconded for 14 days. She said she was making a section 47 direction that in this and in all other future similar cases, matters must be re-entered to court with immediate effect if a child is missing for 24 hours. The judge stressed that the case must be kept under constant review. She hoped the child’s grandmother might be able to assist in identifying a foster family of the same nationality as the child. The judge listed the matter for a date four weeks later and directed that the interpreter be engaged in advance.