An interim care order was extended in a provincial town in respect of one child. The parents did not engage. The child was engaged in sporting activities and required the parents’ consent in order to participate. The Child and Family Agency (CFA) brought an application under section 47 of the Child Care Act, 1991.
The social worker said the grounds for the order continued to exist. She had tried to contact the parents each week but they did not return her calls. Sibling access was not taking place as the social worker could not contact the parents. The child was doing well and was looking forward to going back to school. She was happy in her placement and wanted to stay in her placement.
The child brought re-joining a sporting club to the attention of the social workers and the membership of the club was due for renewal. The membership of the sporting club was in the best interests of the child. The social worker tried to contact the parents to seek their consent but they did not reply. The parents moved address and the father had failed to produce an address. He had given his address last week and the social workers knew now where he was living.
The guardian ad litem (GAL) supported the applications.
The judge noted he was aware of the child’s sporting interests. The interim care order was extended for a period of 28 days and the section 47 application was granted.
Extension of Interim Care Order for five children amid domestic violence concerns
An interim care order was extended in respect of five children in a provincial town. The parents had a sixth child, who had come into care with her siblings, but had aged out of care.
There were allegations of domestic violence in the home in addition to allegations of emotional and physical abuse. A care order hearing had commenced in respect of the children but had not concluded. A number of placements had broken down since the children came into care.
One of the children had been in six placements since coming into care. There were issues with the older children absconding from their placements.
The social worker said there was a difficulty with placement of the two eldest children as the children were not engaging with the foster carers. Supports were put in place to sustain to the placement. The social worker said the Child and Family Agency (CFA) had no other options for the children in the area if the placement were to break down.
The interim care order was extended for a period of 28 days.
Interim care order extended, supervision orders remain for two children
An interim care order was extended in another provincial town in respect of one child. The parents had two other children who were the subject of a supervision order. Neither parent could be contacted in respect of the application. The guardian ad litem (GAL) was supporting the extension.
The social worker said the grounds continued to exist for the interim care order and the threshold had been met. The social worker had attempted to contact the mother to inform her of the application to extend the interim care order, but there had been no contact from either parent. Access had not taken place and the child had no access with her siblings as the calls to facilitate access went unanswered.
The judge asked: “There was a supervision order for the other two children at home and they are supervised. Is there interaction between the parents and social workers?”
The solicitor for the CFA said the parents had disengaged and the social worker had contacted them to say she would carry out an unannounced home visit.
The social worker said she had asked the parents to meet and they refused and wanted to have all of their correspondence through Irish.
The judge asked: “How do the CFA know [the children] are being taken care of?”
The solicitor for the CFA said the social worker would call to the parents with an interpreter and the GAL had suggested private law proceedings in respect of the matter.
The GAL was supportive of sibling access and it was something the child enjoyed. The parents had also disengaged from the GAL.
The judge said: “This is something CFA should keep an eye on and the parents are alienating the child from them [the parents] and her siblings.”
The interim care order was extended for a period of 28 days.
Interim care order extended for child removed from Northern Ireland
An interim care order was extended in respect of a three-year-old child in a provincial town.
The child had previously been the subject of an interim care order in Northern Ireland. The mother removed the child from Northern Ireland and was facing charges in the North as a result of the removal. The child was later located in the State and was taken into care on foot of an emergency care order.
It was suggested that the child would stay with the maternal grandmother but she was awaiting approval as a carer. There were issues of domestic violence in relation to the mother’s partner, who was not the biological father of the child. The biological father of the child did not engage in the proceedings.
The mother emailed the social worker to convey her consent. The mother was expecting her second child and work was being done in relation to a prebirth plan. The guardian ad litem (GAL) had some issues about an assessment to be carried out. Face to face access had commenced.
The interim care order was extended for a period of 28 days.
