District Court grants interim care order for two children due to ill-treatment and neglect risks.

An Chuirt Duiche Dublin Metropolitan District Court

Child and Family Agency Applicant and AA, BB (parents)

& CC (relative carer)

Respondents and EE-Guardian Ad Litem

Childcare Act 1991 – Section 17 (1) - Application for an Interim Care Order

Introduction:

1. Arising from the issues raised in this case the court is taking the unusual position of providing a written decision in a s17 application.

2. The Respondents are referred to as AA, BB “the parents”, CC “relative carer”, EE “Guardian ad Litem” and the children referred to as LL & MM. In this way the public interest in favour of publication can be satisfied without any identification of the mother, father, carer or the children in accordance with the requirements of the Childcare Act, 1991, Courts and Civil Law (miscellaneous provisions) Act 2013. The report of this decision has been "anonymised”

to ensure that the rights of both the children, parents and carer as litigants, in an in-camera hearing under The Childcare Act 1991 are protected.

3. The Child and Family Agency (the agency) brought an application under s17 (1) of the act relating to two children LL and MM aged 15 and 6 years respectively.

4. The children have been placed under a private family arrangement with a relative carer since early 2023. CC is a respondent and contesting the application and wants the children to remain in her care.

5. The respondent parents AA & BB are no longer in a relationship together and living separately, both contest the application and indicate they wish for the children to remain living with the relative carer.

6. The court appointed Guardian ad Litem supports the application for an Interim Care Order.

7. The agency commenced proceedings on the 9 of September 2024 by way of Notice of Application for a Supervision Order under s19 of the act. That application was adjourned to the 1 of October to allow respondents to get legal representation and of note the application was issued against the respondent parents only.

8. On the 1 October the agency indicated they were withdrawing the supervision order application and instead were applying for an Interim Care Order under s17 of the act.

9. The case appeared again on six further occasions over a four-week period and on each occasion the application for an ICO was adjourned because the agency did not have a placement identified for one or both children.

10. The relative carer brought an application under s47 of the act a few days in advance of the ICO hearing seeking to be joined as a respondent to the proceedings with the agency neither opposed to nor objecting to her application. The court granted the application to join CC to the proceedings.

11. While the application was listed for two days it took 3 days hearing evidence with 11 witnesses and into a fourth day when the court gave its decision.

Background:

12. According to social work reports the family were known to the agency since 2007 relating to an older sibling DD being cared for by family members due to concerns around parental drug use.

13. Initial concerns were raised for child LL in 2022 around inadequate supervision at home, watching pornography on his phone, poor personal hygiene, poor presentation in school with reference to having no hot water at the family home.

14. In relation to child MM from the reports he was first known to the agency from his birth in 2018 due to parental drug use and concerns around AA’s presentation to the maternity hospital for antenatal care and delivery of MM. At the time the reports note that MM was admitted for observation for signs of neonatal abstinence syndrome, but it simply states he did not require any treatment.

15. The reports then go onto to refer to “Past Harm” noting as follows:

- 2022 -referral from school around concerns for LL not adequately supervised and that he was watching pornographic videos depicting murder with poor personal hygiene and a dirty uniform….no further action noted in reports.

- 2022 – referral again from school noting concerns around mother and her presentation at school. Social work report notes the agency attempted to meet with child LL, but this was not allowed, and no further action noted.

- 2023- referral from the community with concerns around LL & MM noting that MM who was aged 4yrs at the time, was wondering around outside his apartment building with no clothes on, crying and calling for his mother and states that he was hungry. It appears from the report a neighbour contacted the older sibling DD to come to the home and take him out for some food.

- The mother AA then collected child MM from a neighbour that day and brought him home.

However shortly after when LL arrived home from school the children were left home alone again with the older sibling DD arriving back at the home who then contacted Gardai who advised he contact the agency.

- the reports go onto state that the older sibling removed both children and placed them in the care of the relative CC. The concerns noted were around AA’s use of crack cocaine, home was filthy, dirty clothes on the floor and food all over the floor with no electricity and children’s bedding was filthy.

- 2023 – a separate welfare report from around this time from a youth worker refers to the same incident noting that the older sibling contacted the youth worker to say that he had received a call from a named neighbour and stated “the sibling had informed the youth worker he was very concerned about the welfare of his younger siblings and that MM was running around the halls of the apartment building undressed, crying and distressed”…..the report says that the older sibling asked the neighbour to take MM into her home while he travelled from work to get him and he then decided to take his brothers to his relative’s home to keep them safe.

- In or around this time another referral was received into the agency about the children and in particular developmental delays for child MM noting he has only begun to speak and is not toilet trained.

Placement with relative carer:

16. So, in early 2023 the position with the family was that following serious concerns for the safety and welfare of two children LL & MM then aged 12 & 4 years old removed from their mother’s care by an older sibling and placed with a family relative (CC) to keep them safe.

17. At the time the relative carer had not seen the two children for a period of 3 years arising from a very strained relationship with the respondent mother. Unknown to the relative carer the two children had their own individual difficulties and challenges including developmental delays, not fully toilet trained and a diagnosis of autism.

18. The relative carer had 4 children of her own living with her at this time including two adult children and two young teenagers who had particular health difficulties with the relative carer having to move out of her own bedroom room sleeping on a sofa in the sitting room to accommodate the two children now placed with her.

19. From the reports and evidence provided to the court it is clear this placed extraordinary pressure and responsibility on the relative carer without any advance planning or warning combined with the trauma, upset and the impact on the two young children being removed from their mother’s care and placed with a relative they had not seen in three years.

20. The carers understanding at the time was this would be a temporary placement only, but it continued under a private family arrangement for 21 months.

The Child and Family Agency position:

21. The agency had a file opened on these children from 2022. It is unclear from the evidence or the reports what, if anything, happened as regards the social work involvement in this case and whether any visit(s) took place in the immediate weeks and months that followed but the reports note that the children were left with the relative carer under a “temporary private arrangement”.

22. In the reports it seems that a family support agency was involved in 2023 following a referral to them from a youth worker. That referral was on a waitlist when another referral was received from a social worker in the child and family agency noting that at the time the CFA was clear that this was a temporary placement, and the family support work would be required for a short term only.

23. Five months later the reports indicate that a child protection case conference was held for the two children LL & MM under the category of neglect with numerous other concerns noted and further that the mother had not seen the children since they went to live with the relative. The outcome of the case conference was that the children would remain living with the relative carer and the children were not placed on the child protection notification system.

24. There was no evidence or information before the court as to how often a social worker was visiting the relative placement over this five-month period.

25. Shortly after the case conference was held a social care worker was allocated to the case who then began visiting the relative carer’s home twice a month.

26. The social care worker made reference to seeking clarity from the relative around the payments she was receiving from the agency for caring for these children but in all of the evidence before the court it was not clear what exact payments she was receiving while the two children were in her care for 21 months.

Concerns with placement:

27. The reports and evidence go onto refer to various dates later in 2023 noting that the relative carer was at the time receiving abusive text messages from the mother with the relative carer further stating she could no longer care for the children and in one particular incident around this time she told social workers she would leave the children at a Garda station.

28. The relative carer also highlighted to social workers that she had own struggles with her mental health, and this combined with caring for LL & MM, the health difficulties with her own two teenage children and the strained relationship with the mother was causing her huge stress.

29. In the evidence before the court the social workers stated that this time was a crisis point for the relative carer and her family and in the autumn of 2023 a decision was made by the agency to seek a foster placement for these children as they had concerns for the children’s care and as part of a parallel plan.

30. The agency made numerous referrals for a foster placement through their own referrals process. No foster placement was identified for the children during this time and a decision was then made in early 2024 to make referrals for a residential placement.

31. It is clear from the evidence that the relative carer continued to struggle to care for these children and made repeated requests for help and assistance while they remained living with her.

32. On four separate occasions during 2023/2024 the relative carer told the agency she could no longer care for the two children and that in addition to managing her own children it seems she was also looking after a grandchild each day during the week.

33. In evidence before the court over the 3 days the social workers expressed various concerns over issues in the home at this time including that the relative carer was raising her voice to the children when they were upset, one incident of violence in the home from LL resulting in the carer’s family having to restrain him, concerns expressed around missed medical appointments, poor stimulation in the home, their overall presentation and the social workers not being allowed to speak to the children on their own.

34. The agency continued to ask the relative carer to attend various appointments and services for the two children which in the view of some of the professionals increased the pressure and stress on the relative carer all the while raising concerns around her care or the way she was talking or shouting in front of the children or her refusal to allow the children see their mother.

35. In addition, access arrangements between the children and their mother were left to the relative carer to facilitate despite the very strained difficult relationship between the carer and children’s mother.

Application adjourned:

36. After issuing an application for an Interim care order in October the application was repeatedly adjourned by the agency when the court was told they did not have a placement available for one or both of the children.

37. On a number of occasions, the court was told the agency had identified a residential placement for one boy and the only placement option available for the other boy was in a special emergency arrangement. The application had to be adjourned on six occasions while the agency continued to try to find a placement.

38. On the morning of the first day of the hearing it was confirmed that the agency had now identified a residential placement for both children together.

Respondents:

39. AA: - the respondent mother attended court on each day of the hearing and gave evidence on day 3. She is someone who has admitted that she has had her own struggles with drug addiction and is not in a position to care for her children at this time. She wants to get into a residential treatment programme and be part of her children’s lives into the future. It is clear she loves her children, and the court expressed the hope that she can progress with her treatment and be part of her children’s lives. She was commended for her courage in attending court and giving evidence in difficult circumstances.

40. BB: - the respondent father did not attend court and his legal representative indicated that pending the outcome of the proceedings he may proceed with his own private family law application relating to the children.

41. CC: - the relative carer also attended each day and gave evidence on day 3. All of the professionals agree that she loves both children. In her evidence she did acknowledge that she has struggled to manage caring for the two children but that she wants the children to remain in her care. She is agreeable to a supervision order with supports in place from the agency. The court commended the carer for stepping in and caring for the children over the last 21 months noting that there is no criticism from this court of her efforts to keep these children safe. She has done her best in extraordinarily difficult circumstances.

42. EE: - the court appointed Guardian ad Litem is a very experienced professional in this area and was appointed to the children on the 16 of September. Soon after her appointment the Guardian requested an urgent meeting with the social workers to discuss her serious concerns for the children’s welfare. In that meeting the Guardian outlined that the application for a supervision order should not proceed and the agency needed to reconsider the matter.

43. In her evidence and her report, the Guardian noted some 32 referrals of child protection concerns relating to these children.

44. The Guardian gave details of a meeting with the relative carer where she indicated that she clearly loves the children and wanted what is best for them, but she has struggled to meet their high needs. This has affected her health and indeed her mental health.

45. The Guardian supports the application for an Interim care order and believes that these two children present as guarded, angry at times, some avoidant coping behaviours all which have to be addressed once they are safely placed in the residential unit.

Childcare Act 1991: The relevant sections of the act are set out below:

46. Section 3 of the act states that it “shall be a function of the agency to promote the welfare of children who are not receiving adequate care and protection….and in the performance of this function take such steps as it considers requisite to identify children who are not receiving adequate care and protection”.

47. Section 17 states that where a judge of the District Court is satisfied on the application of the agency “that there is reasonable cause to believe that any of the circumstances mentioned at paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of section 18 (1) exists or has existed with respect to the child and it is necessary for the protection of the child’s health or welfare that he/she be placed or maintained in the care of the agency pending the determination of the application for the care order” the Judge may make an interim care order.

48. Section 18 (1) states that where on an application of the agency with respect to a child the court is satisfied that -

(a) the child has been or is being assaulted, ill-treated, neglected or sexually abused, or

(b) the child’s health, development or welfare has been or is being avoidably impaired or neglected, or

(c) the child’s health, development or welfare is likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected, and that the child requires care or protection which he is unlikely to receive unless the court makes an order under this section, the court may make an order (in this Act referred to as a “care order”) in respect of the child.

49. Section 24 provides that “in any proceedings before the court under the Act in relation to the care and protection of a child, the court shall regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration in the resolution of such proceedings” and “in determining what is in the best interests of the child, the court shall have regard to all of the factors or circumstances that it considers relevant to the child” as set out in s24 (2).

Systemic Issues:

50. The court does not criticise individual social workers who have a very difficult job, they are committed hard-working professionals doing their best on the ground in challenging circumstances.

51. The courts criticism in this case is directed at the wider system that exists to protect children in this country and specifically how that system has failed.

52. The issues highlighted in the reports and evidence in this case over three days bring into focus yet again the crisis in our child protection system.

53. Vulnerable children are continually left at risk with this court experiencing at first hand on a daily basis cases involving children where the court is repeatedly told there are no available placements in either foster care or residential care.

54. In the courts view the ongoing use by the agency of special emergency arrangements (SEAs), an option which was mentioned as a potential placement for one of the children in this case is just a national scandal.

55. Each week the court finds itself dealing with cases where children in care are placed in these unregulated and unregistered placements. Private businesses who run these SEAs are paid millions of euros each year by the state making substantial profits out of a child protection crisis.

56. The lack of placements across the system means that vulnerable at-risk children who are exposed to trauma, neglect, abuse, substance misuse, domestic violence and educational disadvantage are left in these circumstances due to no alternative placement options available with all of these factors present in this case.

57. The agency has a statutory responsibility and duty to protect children but on a daily basis the court now finds itself dealing with cases where the agency is failing to comply with that statutory duty because the court is told there are no available placements, a shortage of qualified social workers, delays in accessing necessary support services and therapeutic interventions again all of which were factors in this case.

58. I am not the first Judge to highlight these issues and I feel certain that I will not be the last, but it is deeply concerning to witness at firsthand on a daily basis the current level of absolute crisis in the child protection system.

59. The system is not working, is broken and urgent intervention is required to protect our vulnerable at-risk children.

60. This is a court of limited and local jurisdiction but that jurisdiction under the childcare act is significant and for now the courts focus is on the systemic issues raised in this particular case.

61. Having heard all of the evidence and read all of the reports submitted I am of the view that there are serious and fundamental questions for the agency to answer in its handling of the case from October 2022 to date.

62. The answers to the questions are necessary and required for this court process, the parties involved in the case but more especially for the two children the subject of the application.

63. Mindful of the court’s jurisdiction and the significant demands we face dealing with full lists on a daily basis combined with the limited resources the court has available, the court is open to suggestions from the legal representatives involved on the most effective and efficient approach for the court to take so that we can try to get answers and address the issues raised in this case.

Court Decision:

64. The application before the court under s17(1) requires the court to be satisfied that there is a reasonable cause to believe that the circumstances set out in s18 (1) a, b, or c of the act are met and further that it is necessary for the protection of the two children and their health or welfare that they be placed in the care of the agency.

65. I have reviewed all of the reports submitted in this application and the reports on the file and listened carefully over 3 days of evidence from 11 witnesses.

66. The decision the court has had to make in this case is a difficult one including whether a 6- year-old child should be placed in a residential unit.

67. This is not a decision which the court takes lightly and it’s a heavy burden I must admit but unfortunately it is not the first time the court has had to consider an application where a child that age or even younger is to be placed in a residential unit.

68. Having said that and taking all of the evidence into consideration I have reached a decision that at this time I am satisfied that there is a reasonable cause to believe that the children LL and MM have been ill-treated and neglected although not specifically while in the care of the relative CC but primarily while residing with their mother.

69. In addition I am of the opinion that given the significant challenges and difficulties the two children have faced in their short lives to-date combined with their particular needs requiring urgent therapeutic intervention and assessment that unless I make an order it is the courts view if they remain in their current placement then there is a reasonable cause to believe that their health, development or welfare is likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected and having reached that decision I find it is necessary for the protection of their health and welfare that they are placed into the care of the agency under an ICO for 28 days.

70. I appreciate the decision will be very difficult for both AA and CC in particular. I hope that CC can understand that the court is making the decision in what the court feel’s is in the best interests of the two children at this time and she will continue to be a big part in the children’s lives while also having time to focus on herself and her own children.

71. In making this decision the court is also in agreement with the Guardian that the focus now needs to be on these two children and not the relative carer CC.

72. There is a requirement for a written access plan to be drawn up by the agency for the respondents AA and CC and circulated as soon as possible, a therapeutic plan with a timeline for specific identified services and supports put in place as soon as possible for the two children, the school placements need to be maintained and there should be no disruption to this particularly for the child LL.

73. Finally, the court would also like to briefly refer to the older sibling DD and commend him for his support and help that he has provided to his younger siblings. He seems like a remarkable young man and his involvement, support and relationship with his two younger siblings at this time and in the coming weeks/months is going to be crucial.

74. Interim care order granted for 28 days.

75. Adjourn the matter for two weeks for mention with legal representatives only along with the section 47 application.

Judge Conor Fottrell. November 2024.

`