A judge in Dublin District Court granted a 28-day extension of interim care orders for five children after a series of one-week extensions because of the lack of appropriate placements for them. The judge said the situation was “unacceptable and appalling” and that the children could have grounds for a future civil action against the State for negligence.
The Child and Family Agency (CFA) had first applied for a two-week extension to interim care orders for five siblings who had been taken into care earlier this year. Three older children were of primary school age, two girls (A) and (B); and a boy (C). Two younger pre-school aged children were both boys (D) and (E). The two younger siblings were in a placement in the west of Ireland which was going well.
The three older siblings had originally been in foster placements with relatives, which had subsequently broken down. All three had been in various out-of-hours placements for the previous four or five weeks. However, some of those placements had also broken down, necessitating further moves.
The CFA’s solicitor told the court that the current out-of-hours placement for the three older children was due to end the following day. As a result of the many placement changes during the previous week, the three older children had missed some days at school. However, it was planned that the children would attend school the following day. The principal social worker had been liaising with the area manager to try and identify a bridging placement for the older children. She acknowledged that it was not an ideal situation, but that it was very much a priority.
The children’s allocated social work team and team leader were on leave and were not available to attend court on this occasion. As a result, the CFA solicitor asked the judge if the CFA’s application could proceed on the basis of the affidavits of the social workers. She added that the parents were consenting to the two-week extension.
The CFA’s solicitor told the court that the children’s mother had just given birth to a new baby and access had not been possible recently. She said that this was also being prioritised. The mother had had phone call access with the older children every day and that some access dates had been scheduled but the mother had not been able to attend all of them. She said that sibling access arrangements were also a concern but that it was necessary to have stable placements to facilitate this.
The father of the three older siblings was in prison in the UK, while the father of the younger two children was in Ireland.
The older children’s father had been available to attend the proceedings by video link when the matter was first called by the judge, but was not available when the application was subsequently heard. He had indicated that he wished to be represented but this was not in place yet.
The father of the younger two children had addiction and mental health issues. He was consenting to the two-week extension of the interim care order. The CFA’s solicitor told the court that he wanted an access plan to be put in place to allow the father see his children. He had also agreed to undergo urine analysis tests and to engage in mental health supports.
The solicitor for the mother told the court that the mother was reluctantly consenting without prejudice to a two-week extension to the interim care orders. She said that the mother was very distressed that she had only seen the children physically once in the past four weeks.
Her solicitor told the court that the children’s situation was appalling. The children were being bounced around multiple placements and did not know where they were going to be staying after school on the following day. She added that in the children’s previous placements there had been serious issues raised with the CFA that had not been addressed. In addition, the children did not know if, after their next placement move, they would be separated and that this uncertainty was very worrying for them.
The solicitor for the three older children’s guardian ad litem (GAL) told the court that the children’s situation was totally unacceptable. She said that there was a complete lack of a suitable placement for the children. The children were confused but they wanted to go to school and could not afford to be missing any school days. She said the GAL was supporting the extension application, but with tight reviews. She also raised the fact that both the allocated social worker and team leader were on leave at the same time.
The judge said that the children’s situation was unacceptable and appalling. The three older children were essentially homeless. He said that it was an outrage that the children were being exposed to harm in the State’s care and that the children may have grounds for a future civil action against the State for negligence.
The judge accepted that the parents had consented to a further two-week extension of the interim care orders and that everyone was in agreement that the threshold had been met in that regard. However, it was with a heavy heart that he was granting the extensions in the face of a corporate agency who was shrugging its shoulders and, at the same time, was celebrating their 10-year jamboree.
The judge said that the court could not continue to be party to a two-week extension and he granted extensions to the interim care orders for one week only. He told the CFA’s solicitor that it would be very bad for the Agency if the children were still in the same situation on that day.
Next hearing, one week later
When the case came back to court a week later, the GAL made a Section 47 application seeking a court direction that the CFA find placements for the children. The solicitor for the CFA said that secure foster homes had not been secured for the three eldest children and they remained in emergency placements. The placement for A was secure for some weeks but the placement for B was due to expire the day after the court hearing. The solicitor said because there was uncertainty about the placement of the children, they had been unable to facilitate access between the children and their mother. The children had also not been in school.
The solicitor for the mother said that she consented to an extension of the interim care order for two weeks and supported the application of the GAL. The solicitor said that since the children had been admitted to the care of the state and the initial interim care order had been granted, the children had had six different placements. He said the older children were afraid, uncertain and had not seen their mother for three weeks. He said the younger children (D) and (E) had started to distance themselves from their mother.
He said: “These youngsters have not seen their mother in over a week, they are toddlers and are now making strange with her.” He said the children had not seen each other and there was no access plan because the placement of the children was so precarious and uncertain. He said that priority had been given to the father for access.
The solicitor for the father said that he also wanted access with the children and was eager to see them. He said the father supported the application of the GAL.
The GAL said that three of the children had had multiple placements. The children needed stability and certainty so they could begin to settle. Since the beginning of the year the CFA had not identified placements for these children and there was a serious urgency to do so. Child in care reviews had not taken place and while she appreciated the difficulties social workers may have, it was essential that placements were found. Because there was no certainty about the placement of the children, there had been no access plan.
The judge said that this was wholly unacceptable, these children were being moved from one short term placement to another or from one out of hours placement to another. They had been moved all over the country. The judge said the CFA were failing in their duty. This matter had been before the court only the previous week and there had been no change.
The CFA had been quick to hand plaudits to themselves on their 10th anniversary as to how well they had done. He said: “It beggars belief, the CFA are asking me to put my name to a court order to keep children in care where these children have no placement, are not in school, have no access plan to see their parents or siblings, it is absolutely shameful, it is a disgrace.”
The judge said he would grant the application of the GAL and directed the CFA to identify, source and secure placements for the three eldest children immediately. He directed that an access plan be put in place. He stated that he would grant an extension of the interim care orders for all children for one week only.
The solicitor for the mother said that it would be his intention to make an application under section 22 of the Child Care Act 1991. Section 22 governs the discharge or variation of a care order or interim care orders, but a section 22 application required seven days’ notice to be given to other parties to the proceedings. The judge noted what the mother’s solicitor said and abridged the notice period to permit the section 22 application be heard the following week with the extension of the interim care orders.
A week later
The mother of the children was present in court with her advocate. The father of the two younger children (D & E) was also present in court and was represented. Efforts had been made to secure the participation of the father of the older children, who was in prison in the UK.
At the previous hearing, the mother’s solicitor had told the court that it was his intention to make an application under section 22 of the Child Care Act 1991. However, at the time of this hearing, the section 22 application was not yet properly before the court. Her solicitor told the court that the children’s mother was opposing the CFA’s extension applications. He said that since the last hearing date one week ago some of the children had changed placement yet again. He said that while there had been some positive developments, the children’s mother wanted to resist the CFA’s extension applications on the basis of the number of changes in placement to which the children had been subjected.
He said that while it was incumbent on any parent to show how they have mended their own hand, the court had to be mindful of the proportionality of the extensions to the interim care orders that it granted. He said that while the children’s mother may not have made progress in respect of her ability to care for her children, the children were currently in the State’s care and it was not clear that they were better off in State’s care as opposed to having remained in their parent’s home.
The solicitor for the children’s guardian ad litem (GAL) reminded the court that on the previous hearing date, the court had made directions under section 47 to force the CFA to find a suitable placement for the children. She said that it appeared that the CFA had identified a placement but that there would need to be a transition period.
The principal social worker told the court that they had now identified a placement for the three older children. She said that one of the children (C) would remain in his existing placement until the move to the permanent placement. However, two of the children (A and B) were currently in a placement in the south of the country and it would be necessary to move them to another, closer, temporary placement to facilitate their transition to the new permanent placement.
She said that it was the intention of the social worker to inform the children that day and that the children would be finally moved the following week. She said that there would be a 45-minute journey from the new permanent placement to the children’s school. The plan was that all of the older children would return to regular school attendance the following week. One of the girls was preparing to make her Holy Communion.
The mother had had access with the children during the previous week. The principal social worker said that the children’s move to their permanent placement would facilitate a more regular access plan.
She said that the two younger children (D and E) would remain in their current placement in the west of Ireland. Sibling access would be a priority and would be facilitated as much as possible. She said that the children’s mother was engaging with the social work department very well. A safety plan was in place and the mother had been a great support to the social workers in helping the children adjust to the moves. However, she said that there was still work to be done to ensure that the children’s mother would be able to care for all six of her children all together.
The mother’s solicitor noted that the proposed permanent placement was in a county north of Dublin. He confirmed with the CFA that the placement was in an approved property and had a compliment of four staff members. There were two other children residing in the placement.
He said that the children’s mother had only been given details regarding the planned placement that morning. The children’s mother had been surprised by the events. She agreed that the final placement would be good for children and in their best interests but that her trust in the CFA had completely broken down. The children had been subjected to innumerable moves, too many to be listed in court, their mother was very upset, so upset that she was resisting the CFA’s application to extend the children’s interim care orders.
The principal social worker said that there had been a lot of moving parts and that the children’s transition plan had only been formalised that morning. She said that a short transition plan was in their best interests. The children would be attending their normal school for the remainder of this school year. This was to provide the children with some familiar circumstances in school.
The principal social worker told the court that the mother would have a clear access schedule for seeing the children. She added that the social work team were looking to move the younger children from their current short-term placement to a longer-term placement closer to the Dublin region to have them closer to their mother. She said that the social work team would draft a reunification plan for mother. However, the mother’s housing situation would have to be considered. She needed accommodation that would have space for six children. In addition, she would need to engage in a parenting capacity assessment to understand how the situation came about in the first instance. The principal social worker stated that a supervision order would not work.
The judge considered the evidence of the principal social worker and noted that the father of the two younger children was consenting to the CFA’s application to extend. He also noted that the GAL was supportive of the application but that the children’s mother was not consenting to it.
He said that having considered the evidence before him, he believed that the threshold had been met and he granted the CFA’s application to extend the interim care orders for the five children for a further week to see how the transition to the permanent placement went. He emphasised again the inadequate manner in which the children had been handled and housed to date. He said that the proportionality of the orders was reflected in the short duration of the extensions.
He granted leave to the mother’s solicitor to serve the section 22 application on the three older children’s father in prison in the UK and at the email addresses previously provided.
Another week later
At a subsequent hearing of the case a week later, the CFA applied for a further 28-day extension to the interim care orders for the five siblings. This application was being made with the consent of the children’s mother and the father of the younger two children. The children’s guardian ad litem (GAL) was also supporting this current application.
At a previous hearing date, the mother’s solicitor had told the court that it was his intention to make an application under section 22 of the Child Care Act 1991. However, as the older children had now transitioned to their permanent placement, the application had been withdrawn.
The CFA’s solicitor told the court that the older children were in their long-term residential placement. The transition had taken a few days and the children had finally moved into the placement the previous day. Child in care reviews in respect of each of the children were being prioritised and would be completed as soon as possible.
The mother had had access with her two younger children earlier in the week. There was agreement that a parenting capacity assessment would be arranged for the mother and the social work team were already looking for suitable assessors.
In terms of the younger children’s father, the solicitor said that certain steps needed to be taken by the father before he would be allowed to have access with his children. She said that she had been told that the father had attended for urine tests and he would be attending counselling as requested. Once the social work team had confirmed this, they would work on facilitating access arrangements for the father.
The father’s solicitor confirmed that the father was consenting to a 28 extension of the interim care orders in respect of his two children. He said that the father had had two clear urine tests and was attending counselling. He was very anxious to progress access with his children.
The mother’s solicitor said that the mother had met with some of the staff in the older children’s long-term placement and she had thought the placement was very nice. The mother wanted to be assured that the children would be attending school regularly and that there would be a regular access schedule. The mother was ultimately looking for a reunification plan.
She said that the mother’s access to the younger children had been reduced to just once a week. The mother would see how this played out over the following month or so, but the access might be increased thereafter. The mother was doing well at home with her new-born baby and a safety plan was in place for that child. She added that as access arrangements were in place between the new baby and its father (who is also the father of the two younger children D and E).
The mother’s solicitor said that the next four weeks were important. She was looking for consistency, an access plan to be drawn up which included inter-sibling access, child in care reviews and a plan for reunification to be drawn up.
The solicitor for the GAL said that the GAL was supporting the 28-day extension application. The GAL had visited the three older children in their new placement. It was a very good development for them which finally brought some stability to their lives.
The judge said that the placement for the older children had been on foot of a section 47 direction for placement brought by the GAL. He noted that the children’s mother and the father of the two younger children had consented to this application for a 28-day extension and that the application had the support of the GAL.
In granting the 28-day extension, he directed that the issues identified: an access plan encompassing inter-sibling access, child care reviews, progress with a parenting capacity assessment for the mother and a plan for reunification, were to be undertaken, Where, where appropriate, these plans should be in writing.
The matter was put into the list for a month later.
