Courts Service Child Care Statistics

We publish here statistics on child care proceedings compiled by the Courts Service but not published in detail in its Annual Reports. They are set in tabular form to present them as clearly as possible. In introducing the statistics we also comment on them, using our attendance at cases to seek to interpret them, and to explain some apparent anomalies. The publication of these statistics supplement the statistics collected from attendance at a selection of courts by the CCLRP and published in two Interim Reports and our Final Report, published in 2015, all published on this website under the Reports heading.

• Court Service Child Care Statistics for 2015
• Court Service Child Care Statistics for 2014

Courts Service Statistics 2015

We publish below the Courts Service statistics for child care applications for 2015. This is the fifth successive year in which the Child Care Law Reporting Project has published these figures, allowing comparison between District Courts over the five-year period. However, the most meaningful comparisons are with last year’s figures, as in 2014 the Courts Service modified the manner in which it records child care applications and outcomes (see below). The total number of applications made in 2015 was 14,124, compared with 9,864 last year. Of these 10,622 were new applications, some of which were dealt with in 2015, while other applications had been carried over. New applications are not necessarily dealt with in the year in which they are lodged, so there is usually a difference between the number of applications dealt with and the number of new applications lodged. However, in some courts, particularly those with lesser volumes, the number of new applications and the total number dealt with are the same.

This year’s figures reveal for the fifth year running great variation in both the number of applications lodged and in outcomes between different cities of approximately similar size. Once again we see that midland towns, in particular, see relatively few applications. Carlow dealt with 123, of which 82 were struck out or withdrawn, and only two were granted; Kilkenny processed 13, ten granted and three adjourned; Longford processed 49, granting 40; Portlaoise dealt with 50, of which 26 were granted and 18 adjourned; Tullamore dealt with 36 applications, of which 17 were granted and 14 adjourned.

At the other end of the scale, Tralee dealt with 239 applications (215 new in 2015); Trim dealt with 349 (all new applications); Waterford had 596 (453 new); Wexford had 935 (of which 439 were new applications); Letterkenny had 1,117 (of which 460 were new). Among the larger cities and towns, Cork dealt with 2,472 (969 new), of which 807 were granted and 1,562 adjourned. This is higher than Dublin, which dealt with 2,003 applications, of which 1,795 were granted, but which saw 4,393 new applications lodged. It must be that the Cork figure includes extensions of existing Care Orders and Interim Care Orders, and Reviews of existing Care Orders, which are high in Cork but rare elsewhere. In contrast, Galway only had 151 applications, of which 35 were granted and 111 adjourned. Limerick had 441, of which 160 were granted, both cities significantly less than the cities of Waterford and Wexford with smaller populations.

Some of the discrepancies may be explained by the manner in which applications are filed and dealt with in the different court areas. There is also some double counting, as Interim Care Orders are renewed while Care Order applications are being heard. This can mean that the hearing of a Care Order is frequently adjourned while the ICO is renewed in the same case. Thus a single case, involving a number of children, could generate a large number of recorded applications. The inclusion since 2014 of the categories “Review of Care Order” and “Extension of Care Order”, which reflects the practice in some courts, undoubtedly also pushed up the total number of child care matters recorded.

Comparisons with earlier years is also made more difficult by the fact that in 2014 the Courts Service increased the number of headings under which cases were filed from four (Supervision Order, Emergency Care Order, Interim Care Order, Care Order) to nine. They are, with the abbreviations we are using in brackets: Supervision Order (SO); Interim Care Order (ICO); Extension of Interim Care Order (Ext ICO); Care Order (CO); Extension of Care Order (Ext CO); Review of Care Order (Rev CO); Emergency Care Order (ECO); Re-entry of case (Re-entry) and Other. “Other” probably includes applications made under Section 47 of the Act (relating to the welfare of a child in care, including access) and matters relating to whether another jurisdiction should hear the case.

The outcomes published by the Courts Service in 2014 also rose from two in previous years (applications made and granted) to seven, although one of these, “Bench Warrant issued”, almost never arises in child care and we do not include it. The headings, with the abbreviations we are using in brackets, are: Granted; Refused; Struck out/Withdrawn (SO/Wdr); Interim Order (Int Order); Adjourned (Adj) and Totals.

With all these caveats, we can say that the Courts Service figures for all child care applications, which reflect units of work as recorded by the Courts Service staff, do reflect court activity in this area and provide useful information on the volume and spread of child care applications around the country. The figures also reveal differing practices by different judges in different parts of the country. While some of the wide disparities between different parts of the country may reflect different court practice and different recording practice, they must also reflect different practices on the part of Tusla/the Child and Family Agency in bringing applications. This may reflect a greater use of voluntary care in some parts of the country, or higher levels of family support.

We can also see from these figures that some courts are more likely to grant orders than others. Nationally, 13.4 per cent of decided applications are either refused or withdrawn or struck out. However, in certain courts, a relatively high numbers of cases are refused, struck out or withdrawn. Among those with the highest proportion of refused/struck out/withdrawn outcomes are Castlebar (41, as against 55 granted) and Waterford (287 granted, 162 refused or withdrawn or struck out). In contrast, only six were withdrawn or struck out and none refused in Trim, while 302 were granted; in Naas 85 were granted and seven refused or withdrawn; in Letterkenny 448 were granted and 26 refused or withdrawn, in Sligo 203 were granted and 13 refused or struck out and in Tralee 187 were granted while one was refused and 10 struck out.

National figures

By District Court, in alphabetical order

Courts Service Child Care Statistics for 2014

Courts Service Child Care Statistics for 2013

Courts Service Child Care Statistics for 2012

Courts Service Child Care Statistics for 2011