Court orders Childcare Agency to appoint social workers for 250 children after 15 years of non-compliance.

Neutral Citation: [2025] IEDC 1

AN CHÚIRT DÚICHE

THE DISTRICT COURT

DUBLIN METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COURT

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDCARE ACT 1991

SECTION 18 AND SECTION 47

Decision of Judge Conor Fottrell delivered on the 11 day of March 2025

Introduction:

1. This decision is provided after the Court found itself in an unprecedented situation with the Child and Family Agency (“the Agency”), who failed to comply with court orders granted over the last 15 years. The issue involves around 250 children under care orders without an allocated social worker and directions to re-enter each case back to court never complied with.

2. The Court is providing this one written decision as the underlying issue is relevant in all cases. The decision covers a 13-month period beginning in February 2024, when this first came to the Court’s attention, up to March 2025, with the Court taking a dual approach in dealing with the matter.

3. In the first instance, each case had to re-entered before the Court for welfare review and update on the care of each child. Second, the Court undertook an enquiry to establish how this extraordinary failure to comply with court orders on such a widespread level had occurred.

4. The Court held several hearings over a few months, with management from the Agency attending court, in addition to reviewing numerous correspondence and reports in response to specific concerns.

5. No parents or parties are named and, in this way, the public interest in favour of publication can be satisfied without any identification of the children or parents.

Background:

6. When a child is in the care of the Agency under a care order, most children are placed with foster carers or, where possible, a relative carer.

7. The Agency has established its own standards to ensure there is a consistent quality of care provided to each child in care. The standards are set out in a document titled National Standards for Foster Care (2003) (“the Standards”), based on the relevant legislation and regulations.

8. The Standards provide that “there is a designated social worker for each child and young person in foster care”. The Standards go onto to state that “[the Agency] allocate a social worker to children as soon as the need for an admission to care is identified and for as long as they remain in care.”

9. The social worker has a responsibility to co-ordinate the care of the child to include arranging care plan reviews and visiting children in the foster home at regular intervals, in compliance with statutory requirements and regulations. On its own website today, the Agency refers to a “youth-friendly” version of those standards written by young people in care which states that “children in foster care should have their own social worker”.

District Court Jurisdiction:

10. The District Court is a court of local and limited jurisdiction, but, under the Child Care Act 1991 (“the Act”), the Court has significant jurisdiction to remove a child from a parent and place them into the care of the state. This is one of the most onerous and serious decisions a District Court judge can make, and it is a decision that is never taken lightly.

11. Section 18(1) of the Child Care Act 1991 states that, where on an application to the Court by 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.”

12. The safety and welfare of children is of paramount consideration for the court in any care order application. When satisfied of the threshold requirements, a court may make a full care order, committing the child to the care of the Agency up to the age of 18.

13. The Court is keenly aware many of these cases involve vulnerable parents and children from newborn babies to teenagers who require care and protection, and the Court’s role does not just come to an end once a care order is granted.

14. District Court Judges who presided in Child Care courts for over 15 years, when satisfied of the threshold requirements for granting a care order, have included in the order directions under section 47 of the Act.

15. Section 47 of the Act states that: -

“When a child is in the care of the Child and Family Agency…the District Court may, of its own motion or on the application of any person, give such directions and make such order on any question affecting the welfare of the child as it thinks proper and may vary or discharge any such directions or order.”

16. The purpose of including s.47 directions in care orders is to ensure that, if any significant material change in the child’s circumstances or care planning occurred while under a care order, the Agency is obliged to bring the case back into court at the earliest opportunity and update the Court on any such changes.

17. This follows an established precedent that the welfare of the child in the care of the Agency remains under the supervision of the District Court pursuant to the provisions of section 47 of the Act.

18. The directions included in a care order to bring a case back into court under section 47 can be the following: i. if there was a move or breakdown of a child’s placement; ii. if children became unallocated to a social worker for a period of 4 weeks; iii. if fosters carers became unallocated to a fostering link worker for a period of 4 weeks; or iv. if statutory child in care reviews did not take place within the timeframe required.

19. The directions are standard and included in all care orders granted by the courts for 15 years now, and the Agency is fully aware of its obligations and when it is necessary to re-enter a case.

Failure To Comply With Court Orders: January – June 2024:

20. In January 2024, the Court became aware of a concern relating to the failure of the Agency to comply with court directions. This came to the attention of the Court not through any effort of the Agency itself, but rather when the Court was dealing with a case before it for a child’s welfare review.

21. During that review, it was brought to the Court’s attention that the Agency had failed to comply with the direction to re-enter that case when that child became unallocated to a social worker. The Court subsequently made its own enquires with the Agency’s legal representative and requested a full list of cases from that social work department where children currently subject to care orders did not have an allocated social worker.

22. On receipt of the list in February 2024, for the first time the Court became aware of 160 children from this social work department under care orders who did not have an allocated social worker. Some of the children had been unallocated to a social worker since May of 2022 but the Agency never complied with the court directions to re-enter each case when it became unallocated.

23. The Court then had to arrange to bring each case back in for a review of the child’s care and welfare in the absence of an allocated social worker. The review process began in early April with all cases listed for review over the course of a few weeks and in each case a Guardian ad Litem was re-appointed, and parents notified where possible.

24. In June 2024, the Court was informed of a further 85 cases from another social work department where, again, children under care orders did not have an allocated social worker.

25. By way of example, in one social work department area, there were 8 cases where children under care orders became unallocated to a social worker in 2019, but for some unexplained reason the regional manager only became aware of this in late 2022. None of those cases were re-entered before the Court.

26. In another example, a child under a care order granted in 2016 became unallocated to a social worker in May of 2019 and the case was never re-entered by the Agency. It only came back in before the Court for the first time in early June 2024 when the Court itself re-entered the case.

Child and Family Agency Response: April – July 2024:

27. The Court undertook its own enquiry, directing written responses from local and regional management to seek an immediate explanation. Local and regional managers were also requested to attend court with various hearings taking place in May and June 2024.

28. In addition, the Court directed a national response from senior managers and received several letters from the Chief Executive Officer in May and June. The Chief Executive Officer was also invited to attend court, but that offer was not taken up.

29. The Agency outlined that, due to a national shortage of social workers and a growing number of referrals, it was increasingly difficult to allocate a social worker to every child in care.

30. The Agency confirmed that local and regional management in social work departments were aware that these children were unallocated to a social worker from November 2022. The Agency also confirmed that it was aware of the Court’s direction to re-enter each case before the Court at the earliest opportunity when a child became unallocated to a social worker for a period of up to 4-6 weeks.

31. In her evidence, the regional manager indicated that she had notified her manager at national level, namely the Director of Services and Integration, in December 2022 of the issue.

32. The Court understands at the request from national management “that a working group consisting of regional managers was set up in early 2023 to investigate this concerning issue and to take steps to resolve the issue”. The regional managers arranged a meeting for each of the 6 regions nationally to “put in place an action plan in relation to this issue”.

33. Further, the Court was told a national meeting took place in January 2023, which included legal representatives, and several action plans were agreed.

34. In subsequent correspondence, the Chief Executive Officer acknowledged that she was aware of the issue in December 2022 in her previous role as Director of Services and Integration, but she did not escalate the matter to the then CEO or the Executive Management Team as it was deemed an operational matter.

35. The CEO said that she now accepted on reflection that this issue should have been escalated at that time and shared with the Executive Management Team and Board. The CEO went onto say that she had now notified the matter to the EMT and the Board.

36. Finally, both the CEO and the regional manager in their correspondence and evidence to the Court accepted the Agency should have re-entered the cases in court and offered sincere apologies to the Court and the children subject to these care orders. They stated that “no active

decision was made not to re-enter the cases before the court”.

Conclusion:

37. This is an extraordinary failure by a State Agency established under an act of the Oireachtas affecting around 250 children across social work department areas in Dublin under care orders granted in these courts over a period of 15 years. In each case children were without an allocated social worker and the Agency never complied with the directions to re-enter.

38. The fact that the care orders were granted to protect the safety, health and welfare of vulnerable children makes it even more troubling.

39. While allowing for and acknowledging the challenges the Agency faced during COVID and the impact of the HSE cyber-attack on its own systems, there were still numerous opportunities before and after these events to bring this issue to the Court’s attention during 2019, 2022, 2023 and 2024.

40. It would appear from the evidence that, during this time, the Agency focussed its attention internally by establishing working groups, organising national meetings and putting actions plans in place.

41. The Court is unsure of what exactly those plans consisted of but the outcome from all of this it seems was that absolutely no action was taken and no one took responsibility to rectify the fundamental issue, namely, to comply with court orders.

42. Clearly, the evidence and correspondence provided to the Court details senior management within the Agency at local, regional and national level were aware of this issue in 2022. At the very first opportunity when a case became unallocated, each one of them should have been re-entered in compliance with each court order.

43. However, the Agency made absolutely no effort to demonstrate compliance with any of these orders and to inform the Court that children in care were without an allocated social worker. The sheer number of children involved across social work departments highlights multiple failures within the Agency at all levels.

44. It is a failure of management at local, regional and national level which raises serious concerns on issues of governance, oversight and communication within the Agency.

45. It’s a failure to properly record and note issues as serious as a breach of court orders on its own internal risk register system or escalate through the need-to-know process, and highlights the shortcomings of these internal systems.

46. It’s a failure to communicate and follow up on meetings, working groups and action plans in 2022 and 2023, and highlights the shortcomings of its internal communication systems.

47. Section 8(5) of the Child and Family Agency Act 2013 states that “the Agency shall, in the performance of its functions, demonstrate high standards of performance, transparency and accountability”.

48. Section 9(1) of that act states “the Agency shall when making decisions in relation to the performance of its functions…have regard to the best interests of the child in all matters”.

49. In the performance of its functions involving these 250 children, the Agency has clearly failed to demonstrate high standards of performance, transparency and accountability. Equally, it failed to have regard to the best interests of each of these children.

50. This has been shocking and appalling behaviour by the Agency and how it saw its duty and obligation to the courts and, more importantly, to children in its care.

51. The Agency must learn from this and urgently review its own internal systems at all levels to ensure there is a proper robust management, oversight and record of court orders.

Court Directions: July 2024-March 2025:

52. Arising from this, the Court issued new directions against the Agency in July 2024 (Appendix 1, attached). The directions were made to ensure there would be an open transparent record of what happened, with a focus on the children and their care planning.

53. The Court directed the Agency to carry out a review of all cases where children currently under care orders granted by these courts to identify any further breaches of court orders.

54. The Court believed that it was necessary that each child’s care plan would be amended and updated to reflect the fact that their case was unallocated to a social worker.

55. The Court also asked for a letter to be sent to the foster carers of each child, so they were aware that the child in their care did not have an allocated social worker.

56. Updates in relation to the Court’s directions were provided in September, October and December 2024 and again in February and March 2025. In September, the Court was asked by the legal representatives for the Agency to set aside the direction to amend each child’s care plan. However, this was refused.

February – March 2025

57. In February 2025, the Court received copies of the amended care plans for each child. However, the Court was not satisfied with the way in which the Agency had amended and updated each care plan.

58. It was the Courts view that the amended care plans did not provide a clear written account of when each child was unallocated to a social worker within the care plan. The Court indicated it would not approve of the amended care plans. The Agency felt the amendments were sufficient.

59. In the circumstances, the Court decided to a write a letter to each of the children concerned. In the Court’s view, the children are entitled to be given an accurate and informed account of what happened in their case. The children may want to access their own file later in life to help them understand their own life story and the role the Court played in that. The letter (see Appendix 2) is to be included in each child’s social work file and a copy provided to their Guardian ad Litem.

60. In March 2025, the Agency updated the Court on the direction to review all cases of children currently under care orders granted by this Court. The Agency informed the Court that, since July 2024, it had reviewed 617 cases and recorded a further 666 directions which they have not complied with. As the Court understands, there remains a further 554 cases to be reviewed.

61. The Court awaits further updates in relation to these remaining cases in the coming months. It is remarkable that all of this has come to light through the Court’s own enquires and the issuing of new directions and not from the Agency itself.

62. The persistent non-compliance with court orders by the Agency is a very concerning and serious matter. It cannot continue and will not be tolerated by this Court.

Judge Conor Fottrell. District Court.

11 March 2025.

APPENDIX 1

Unallocated cases – April to July 2024

Court directions:

1. The Child and Family Agency (“the Agency”) to undertake an internal review or audit to confirm that there are no further cases relating to children currently under care orders granted by the Dublin Metropolitan District Court where the court direction relating to re-entry for unallocated social workers has not been complied with. That review should also include compliance with all other s.47 court directions under care orders granted by the Court for children currently on care orders. This review and any further cases identified should be confirmed in writing to the Court signed by the Regional Chief Officer by Friday 13 September.

2. The care plan for each child needs to be amended and transparent to note the following:

- The directions made by the Court under s.47 in the care order should be recorded in each care plan.

- The date on which the child became unallocated to a social worker should be clearly set out in each care plan.

- If the child remains unallocated to a social worker, this should be clearly reflected in each updated care plan; for example, if the case is being managed by the active on duty team or a social care worker, this should be clearly recorded and noted in the amended care plan.

3. Updated and amended care plans to be provided to the Court by Friday 13 September in advance of the next review dates in September and included on the child’s file and provided to the legal representatives of the other parties including Guardians ad Litem in each case.

4. Consideration to be given as to whether it is appropriate for a conversation to be had with each child the subject of these orders in an appropriate child-friendly manner to discuss the failure of the Agency to comply with court orders and the national standards. This should be done in consultation with the Guardians ad Litem in each case.

5. Copy of letter sent to the foster carers notifying them that the child had become unallocated to a social worker should be provided to the Court and the legal representatives for the Guardian ad Litem by 13 September.

6. The Agency to set out in writing in each case when a social worker will be allocated to each child. This letter should be signed by the Regional Chief Officer. In the alternative if no social worker is to be allocated to these children, then the Court is directing a letter to be signed by the Regional Chief Officer in each case to note that the Agency is not in a position to allocate a qualified social worker, acknowledging this is not in compliance with its own national standards.

___________________________

Conor Fottrell. Judge of the District Court.

3 July 2024.

APPENDIX 2

Dublin Metropolitan District,

Child Care Courts,

Chancery Street

Dublin 7.

11 March 2025

Introduction

I am a Judge of the District Court assigned to the Child Care Courts in Dublin dealing with cases relating to the safety, care and welfare of children. I am providing the letter below for the

250 children under Care Orders granted by the Court who did not have an allocated social worker and where the Child and Family Agency (“the Agency”) failed to inform the Court about this as directed. The Court has been dealing with these cases over the last 12 months. Many of the cases remain before the Court under review and any case that is still unallocated to a social worker will remain under review before the Court for as long as necessary. The Court will also continue in its efforts to make sure that the Agency never allows this to happen again. The failure to comply with court orders will not be tolerated. I believe it is important that the Court would communicate directly with the children at the centre of these proceedings. Each child is entitled to be given an accurate and informed account of what happened in their case on this issue.

I hope and wish that, should any child want access later in life to their own file, the letter will provide them with a record of what happened and help them understand the efforts the Court made to hold the Agency to account. The Court wants a copy of this letter to be put on the social work file for each child without redaction. A copy of the letter will also be provided to each child’s Guardian ad Litem.

To The Children Concerned

My name is Conor Fottrell, and I am Judge of the District Court working in the Child Care Courts in Dublin. I deal with cases everyday relating to the safety and welfare of children. I have to make decisions in relation to children, who are known to or in the care of the Agency. A Care Order places a child into the care of the Agency up to their 18th birthday. When the Court granted a Care Order in respect of you, the Judge at the time made sure that you would have an allocated social worker available to you. To ensure that you would always have an identified social worker available while you were in the care of the Agency, the Judge specially included it into the Care Order. When the Judge wrote this into the Care Order, it is called a direction. A direction means that the Judge made it a legal requirement which the Agency must follow. This was the Court’s way of making sure that you would have all you need, even when the Court was not hearing about you on a regular basis. The Agency was directed to let the Court know if a child became unallocated to a social worker after a set period, such as 4 weeks. The Court was very shocked and disappointed when it became aware that the Agency did not follow the Court’s direction to inform the Court that children on Care Orders did not have social workers.

I am writing to you as the Court was told that you were one of the children that did not have an allocated social worker. The Court found out that you, and around 250 children across social work departments in Dublin, did not have allocated social workers for more than 4 weeks. Judges for the last 15 years have put this as a direction into the Care Order. When I became aware of this situation in February 2024, I made efforts to get an explanation from the Agency as to how this happened, and to ensure it does not happen again. I asked each Dublin social work department to identify each child under a Care Order with no social worker. I asked them to provide the Court with updates on how each child was doing to ensure that they were well, and they had all the care they needed. The allocation of a social worker to each child in care is so important to provide all the supports you need even when things are going well for you. Each child in care should be able to form a relationship with their social worker, to contact and connect with them whenever they need to do so. This is why the Agency has its own National Standards for Foster Care, which say that each child in care should have an allocated social worker. In each case a Guardian ad Litem was appointed, and parents notified where possible. Guardians ad Litem are independent professionals appointed by the Court to be the voice of the child and give their independent professional opinion on a child’s welfare and update the Court. I felt it was important that each child had an opportunity to speak to someone from outside the Agency about their current situation. The Court asked senior managers from the Agency to come into court to answer questions about each child not having a social worker and court orders not being complied with. The Agency acknowledged and accepted that it should have told the Court about all of this, and apologised to the Court and to the children.

The Court told the Agency to write to each foster carer to make sure that they knew that the child in their care did not have a social worker. The Agency did this. I also asked that each child’s care plan was updated to make sure that there is a clear written record for each child of when their Care Order was not complied with and for how long they were without a social worker. The Agency did not update the care plans as I hoped. Instead, they attached a record of social workers that were appointed to each child. This is not what I wanted for each child, but the Agency believe this is sufficient. My plan is for your case to remain before the Court until the Agency complies with the Care Order in place for you. We are all working hard to ensure that you feel heard, and your needs are being met in the care of the Agency. I hope you find this letter helpful, and you understand the reasons why the Court felt it was important to write to you. Finally, I wish you all the best now and in the future.

With very best wishes,

Judge Conor Fottrell.

11 March 2025.