A judge in rural town granted an extension of an interim care order for an infant boy and by her own motion appointed a guardian ad litem. The mother opposed the extension. The judge had to remind an interpreter to interpret directly what was being said.
The interim care order had been granted one month previously and had been fully contested by the mother. The grounds for this initial application had included the fact that the mother had left the infant unattended while she went to work and that she gave him custard as an alternative to milk.
A solicitor and a barrister legally represented the mother. The father was in court with a court-appointed interpreter, but had no legal representation. No guardian ad litem (GAL) had been appointed to the infant.
Evidence of the social work team leader
The social work team leader said the infant was settled in his placement and was due his next set of vaccinations. He had been seen by the general practitioner, his weight had increased and the GP recommended a change of milk formula. He was happy and smiley. He said that when he loses sight of the foster parent, he becomes panicked. The mother’s access visits had gone well and there was obvious affection and a close bond between them.
During these visits, the mother had tried to breast feed the infant, but the infant had become fractious. The father had had an access visit which was the first visit since the infant’s birth. He said there was some debate as to the child’s paternity. A DNA test had been done and the parties were waiting for the results.
The judge interrupted the evidence of the social work team leader to ask the interpreter what he was doing. She told him to sit next to the father and interpret all that was being said.
The social work team leader had met with the parents to discuss a plan for reunification and explain the steps that would need to be taken before the infant could be returned to their care. These steps included a cognitive assessment for the mother, the establishment of a recognised safety network and initially 24-hour supervision for the mother when she had care of the infant.
During the meeting, the mother repeatedly stated she wanted to be reunited with her child but consistently downplayed the concerns of the social worker. These concerns included the concern that the mother had taken an overdose. When he called to inquire as to her well-being, she was dismissive, denied an overdose had been taken and accused him of spying.
He said a parenting capacity assessment needed to be completed but this had been paused as a cognitive assessment had been recommended first. The mother continued to wish to breast feed and at access visits she tried to breastfeed the infant, but she had a poor milk supply. The mother had contacted the breast-feeding nurse specialist at the local hospital who had recommended a hospital grade breast pump. However, the social work team leader said that the mother had stopped breast feeding prior to the infant being taken into the care of the Child and Family Agency (CFA).
In cross examination the mother’s barrister said that the mother had not been informed of the concerns of the CFA nor the complaints that had led to the application for the interim care order. She said the mother had never been told there had been a complaint that she had left the infant alone and unsupervised. The social worker replied that the mother had been informed, and all these issues had been addressed at the hearing of the initial interim care order.
The barrister said that it had been necessary for An Gardai Siochana to remove the child, which was a traumatic experience, and in the melee the mother had been badly bruised. She asked the social worker: “Surely, it would have been better for all concerned for the child to be taken to foster carers in a more planned manner. Can you understand the effect that experience would have on a mother?”
The social worker replied: “It was traumatic, but we were concerned for the infant and for the mother’s mental health, we had heard stories which were conflicting and there were credible reports the infant had been left alone whilst the mother went to work.”
The barrister stated the mother had not taken an overdose but after such a traumatic experience she had not slept and had taken double the dose of sleeping tablets. The social worker said he had been contacted by emergencies services who said the mother had taken an overdose. She did accept though that the mother had not been taken to hospital and there had been no other follow-up with any medical professional.
The mother did not give evidence.
The mother’s barrister made submissions. She said the mother had to work and only worked part-time. She accepted that one time she had left the child alone as she had no-one to help her or care for the child. She said the mother would resign her position if necessary and would organise an au pair so the infant would never be alone. The mother intended to cooperative fully in all assessments.
The mother’s current access schedule was for one hour three times per week which was insufficient for breast feeding to be maintained. Breast feeding was not just about nutrition but also about being nurtured and comforted. For this to be maintained access needed to be increased.
She said the mother was a lone parent without supports or help and this extension, like the initial interim care order, was an overreaction on the part of the CFA. The infant had never been in any danger. The mother would ensure that there was always an adult with the infant. She said the CFA had not met the threshold required for an extension of the interim care order.
Decision
The judge said she had considered all the evidence and found the threshold had been met. She ordered that access be at the discretion of the CFA. She also by her own motion appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) to the child.A judge in rural town granted an extension of an interim care order for an infant boy and by her own motion appointed a guardian ad litem. The mother opposed the extension. The judge had to remind an interpreter to interpret directly what was being said.
The interim care order had been granted one month previously and had been fully contested by the mother. The grounds for this initial application had included the fact that the mother had left the infant unattended while she went to work and that she gave him custard as an alternative to milk.
A solicitor and a barrister legally represented the mother. The father was in court with a court-appointed interpreter, but had no legal representation. No guardian ad litem (GAL) had been appointed to the infant.
Evidence of the social work team leader
The social work team leader said the infant was settled in his placement and was due his next set of vaccinations. He had been seen by the general practitioner, his weight had increased and the GP recommended a change of milk formula. He was happy and smiley. He said that when he loses sight of the foster parent, he becomes panicked. The mother’s access visits had gone well and there was obvious affection and a close bond between them.
During these visits, the mother had tried to breast feed the infant, but the infant had become fractious. The father had had an access visit which was the first visit since the infant’s birth. He said there was some debate as to the child’s paternity. A DNA test had been done and the parties were waiting for the results.
The judge interrupted the evidence of the social work team leader to ask the interpreter what he was doing. She told him to sit next to the father and interpret all that was being said.
The social work team leader had met with the parents to discuss a plan for reunification and explain the steps that would need to be taken before the infant could be returned to their care. These steps included a cognitive assessment for the mother, the establishment of a recognised safety network and initially 24-hour supervision for the mother when she had care of the infant.
During the meeting, the mother repeatedly stated she wanted to be reunited with her child but consistently downplayed the concerns of the social worker. These concerns included the concern that the mother had taken an overdose. When he called to inquire as to her well-being, she was dismissive, denied an overdose had been taken and accused him of spying.
He said a parenting capacity assessment needed to be completed but this had been paused as a cognitive assessment had been recommended first. The mother continued to wish to breast feed and at access visits she tried to breastfeed the infant, but she had a poor milk supply. The mother had contacted the breast-feeding nurse specialist at the local hospital who had recommended a hospital grade breast pump. However, the social work team leader said that the mother had stopped breast feeding prior to the infant being taken into the care of the Child and Family Agency (CFA).
In cross examination the mother’s barrister said that the mother had not been informed of the concerns of the CFA nor the complaints that had led to the application for the interim care order. She said the mother had never been told there had been a complaint that she had left the infant alone and unsupervised. The social worker replied that the mother had been informed, and all these issues had been addressed at the hearing of the initial interim care order.
The barrister said that it had been necessary for An Gardai Siochana to remove the child, which was a traumatic experience, and in the melee the mother had been badly bruised. She asked the social worker: “Surely, it would have been better for all concerned for the child to be taken to foster carers in a more planned manner. Can you understand the effect that experience would have on a mother?”
The social worker replied: “It was traumatic, but we were concerned for the infant and for the mother’s mental health, we had heard stories which were conflicting and there were credible reports the infant had been left alone whilst the mother went to work.”
The barrister stated the mother had not taken an overdose but after such a traumatic experience she had not slept and had taken double the dose of sleeping tablets. The social worker said he had been contacted by emergencies services who said the mother had taken an overdose. She did accept though that the mother had not been taken to hospital and there had been no other follow-up with any medical professional.
The mother did not give evidence.
The mother’s barrister made submissions. She said the mother had to work and only worked part-time. She accepted that one time she had left the child alone as she had no-one to help her or care for the child. She said the mother would resign her position if necessary and would organise an au pair so the infant would never be alone. The mother intended to cooperative fully in all assessments.
The mother’s current access schedule was for one hour three times per week which was insufficient for breast feeding to be maintained. Breast feeding was not just about nutrition but also about being nurtured and comforted. For this to be maintained access needed to be increased.
She said the mother was a lone parent without supports or help and this extension, like the initial interim care order, was an overreaction on the part of the CFA. The infant had never been in any danger. The mother would ensure that there was always an adult with the infant. She said the CFA had not met the threshold required for an extension of the interim care order.
Decision
The judge said she had considered all the evidence and found the threshold had been met. She ordered that access be at the discretion of the CFA. She also by her own motion appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) to the child.
