Court extends interim care order and mandates registered placement for child in Special Emergency Arrangement.

[2026] IEDC 1

AN CHÚIRT DÚICHE THE DISTRICT COURT DUBLIN METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COURT

THE CHILDCARE ACT 1991 SECTION 17 & SECTION 47

IN THE MATTER OF A (a child)

THE CHILD AND FAMILY AGENCY Applicant

-and-

BB, CC & DD Respondents -and-

EE Guardian ad Litem

Decision of Judge Conor Fottrell delivered on the 18th day of February 2026

Introduction:

1. The application is brought under section 17(2) of the Childcare Act 1991 (“the Act”)

in relation to a child, aged 13 years.

2. The applicant in the case is the Child and Family Agency (“the Agency”) which is seeking an extension of an interim care order granted in November 2025.

3. The Guardian ad Litem has also brought an application under section 47 of the Act seeking a court direction in relation to a placement for the child. That application has been adjourned on a few occasions.

4. The respondents are the father of the child and the maternal grandfather; although named as a respondent, the mother of the child is sadly deceased.

5. The respondents are referred to as BB, CC, DD & EE. The report of the decision has been anonymised to ensure the rights of both the child and the father and grandfather as litigants, in an in-camera hearing under the Act, are protected. In this way, the public interest in favour of publication can be satisfied without any identification of any of the parties and in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

6. The respondent father and maternal grandfather have attended Court regularly and are legally represented by a solicitor and counsel. An advocate has also attended with the grandfather.

7. The child’s interests in the proceedings are represented by the court-appointed Guardian ad Litem. The Guardian is represented by a solicitor.

8. The case came before the Court three times in one week, in circumstances where the child was missing from care and the only available placement option was a Special Emergency Arrangement (“SEA”).

Background:

9. The family have been known to the social work department for several years. The reports outline that there has been a total of 46 referrals to the Agency since 2012 expressing serious concerns around the child’s safety and welfare.

10. These concerns centred around parental substance misuse in the home, reports of domestic violence, and reports of neglect.

11. The child went to live with his maternal grandfather under a private family arrangement in 2022. He had an older sibling aged over 18 years who was also living with his grandfather.

12. Sadly, the child’s mother passed away in 2022 and the child’s father has ongoing addiction issues and is not consistently involved in the child’s life.

13. The child’s grandfather was assessed as a protecting and loving guardian for the child, but the child’s behaviour deteriorated significantly during 2024 and 2025. He stopped attending school and was missing from his grandfather’s care for long periods of time.

14. He came to the attention of An Garda Síochána on numerous occasions and was arrested for serious offences including theft, burglary, criminal damage, joyriding and public order.

15. At the time there were fears that the child was associating with older youths and adults, with professionals expressing concern around potential grooming and exploitation by adults involved in criminal activity.

16. The position at the child’s grandfather’s home became extremely difficult with the child disappearing for long periods of time, returning home under the influence of substances, and often becoming verbally abusive and aggressive to his grandfather and older sibling.

17. The child’s grandfather expressed concerns for the safety of the child and his own safety and that he could no longer manage the escalating behaviours of the child.

18. Several supports and services were attempted but the child’s behaviour continued to deteriorate with repeated notifications of involvement in car theft, assault, and criminal damage. The child was also observed to be storing and selling drugs and in regular company of older teenagers and adults.

19. In late 2025, the Agency believed that the child’s safety could no longer be ensured while living with his grandfather and with all community supports and services having been exhausted.

20. It should be noted that there is no criticism of the child’s grandfather. It is acknowledged by all professionals that he is committed, loving, and caring towards the child, but was simply exhausted and could not manage the deteriorating behaviour.

21. The home environment had become unpredictable, unsafe, and destabilising for all the family.

Interim Care Order – November 2025:

22. An interim care order application under section 17(1) of the Childcare Act 1991 in respect of the child was brought before the Court by the Agency in November 2025.

23. Section 17 of the Childcare Act states: -

“(1) Where a justice of the District Court is satisfied on the application of the Child and Family Agency that—

(a) an application for a care order in respect of the child has been or is about to be made (whether or not an emergency care order is in force), and

(b) there is reasonable cause to believe that any of the circumstances mentioned at paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of section 18(1) exists or has existed with respect to the child and that it is necessary for the protection of the child’s health or welfare that he be placed or maintained in the care of the Agency pending the determination of the application for the care order, the justice may make an order to be known and in this Act referred to as an “interim care order”.

(2) An interim care order shall require that the child named in the order be placed or maintained in the care of the Child and Family Agency—

(a) for a period not exceeding twenty-nine days, or

(b) where the Child and Family Agency and the parent having custody of the child or person acting in loco parentis consent, for a period exceeding twenty-nine days, and an extension or extensions of any such period may be granted (with the consent, where an extension is to exceed twenty-nine days, of the persons specified in paragraph (b)) on the application of any of the parties if the justice is satisfied that grounds for the making of an interim care order continue to exist with respect to the child.

(3) An application for an interim care order or for an extension of such an order shall be made on notice to a parent having custody of the child or to a person acting in loco parentis except where, having regard to the interests of justice or the welfare of the child, the justice otherwise directs.

(4) Where an interim care order is made, the justice may order that any directions given under subsection (7) of section 13 may remain in force subject to such variations, if any, as he may see fit to make or the justice may give directions in relation to any of the matters mentioned in the said subsection and the provisions of that section shall apply with any necessary modifications.”

24. The professionals involved in the case at the time agreed that the child was a highly vulnerable young boy whose safety and welfare were significantly impaired and neglected.

25. The father consented to an interim care order and the grandfather’s position was that he neither consented nor objected to the making of an order.

26. The Guardian ad Litem supported the application for an interim care order with a recommendation that the child be placed in a safe and structured care setting capable of providing consistent supervision and routine.

27. The Court was satisfied that the threshold for an interim care order was met, and the application was granted. Under section 17, the Court can grant an interim care order for period of up to 29 days.

28. However, the Court granted the order for 2 weeks only, in circumstances where the placement identified by the Agency for the child was an SEA.

29. At the time, the Court expressed its concerns and reservations around placing this child in a SEA, but the Agency indicated that it was the only placement option available.

30. The matter subsequently came back before the Court on four further occasions in December and January with the interim care order extended on each occasion. The Agency continued its efforts to seek an alternative suitable placement for the child.

31. In the meantime, the child remained placed in an SEA and while initially he made some positive efforts at improvement, including a return to school and engaging with professionals, it was clear that the placement was not a suitable long-term option for the child.

32. During this time the child continued to express a wish to return to live with his grandfather and was frustrated with the placement. Missing in care – February 2026:

33. On the 10 of February, the case was re-entered before the Court by legal representatives on behalf of the child’s grandfather in circumstances where the child had been reported missing for 5 days.

34. Understandably the grandfather was extremely worried for the child’s safety, and during this time, the child was found in Dublin by a family relative and brought to the grandfather’s home.

35. However, according to reports, he was highly distressed and angry and left the home very quickly, stating that he would not return.

36. The case came back to court two days later when the application to extend the interim care order was before the Court. At the time the child was still missing from care.

37. The Court heard evidence from the social worker and the Guardian ad Litem who both expressed very serious concerns for the child’s immediate safety, including a potential risk to his life.

38. The priority for all was that the child would be located and returned to the care of the Agency.

39. The urgent need to identify an appropriate and suitable placement for the child was again highlighted with the Guardian ad Litem, noting that the “child’s capacity to engage positively with supports is directly linked to the provision of a stable, consistent placement where he will feel safe, understood and supported.”

40. The Agency informed the Court that the child is a priority for a residential placement, but nothing has become available for him. The Agency was also actively considering a referral to special care, but the only available placement option was a SEA.

41. In circumstances where the child was missing from care and with a SEA as the only placement available, the Court extended the order for one week.

Section 60:

42. At the hearing on the 12 day of February, the solicitor on behalf of the Guardian ad Litem also raised the issue of potential criminal liability against the Agency for placing this child in an unregistered placement.

43. In submissions to the Court, the solicitor expressed the view that an SEA could be illegal under the Act, and the Agency was placing the child in an unapproved centre and funding an unapproved centre.

44. The solicitor highlighted section 60 of the Act which states: -

“(1) A person shall not carry on a children’s residential centre unless the centre is registered and the person is the registered proprietor thereof.

(2) A person shall not be in charge of a centre unless the centre is registered.

(3) Any person who contravenes a provision of this section shall be guilty of an offence.”

45. If this issue was not resolved in the week following the hearing, which took place on

12 day of February, then this matter may subsequently need to be determined by this Court, and, if necessary, the in-camera rule lifted for the purposes of allowing a complaint to the relevant authorities around the legality of placing this child in a SEA.

Interim Care Order extension – 18 February

46. The case was back in Court for the third time in a week to extend the interim care order. The Court again heard evidence from the allocated social worker and the Guardian ad Litem.

47. The Court was informed that while the child had been found and returned to the care of the Agency late last week, he has subsequently gone missing from care again and remains missing. He had returned to the SEA placement for a few days.

48. Both the social worker and the Guardian ad Litem expressed very serious and immediate concerns for the child’s safety and a risk to his life. They indicated that the child was at further risk of grooming and criminal exploitation from older adults.

49. The social worker informed the Court that a referral to special care had now been submitted but no other suitable placement had been identified for this child. Special Emergency Arrangement

50. This Court is keenly aware of the increased demand on placements for children in care and the challenges the Agency is facing in meeting this demand. The Court has been regularly told that there are an inadequate number of placements across the system.

51. The Court has further been told that the Agency is trying to provide the best care for vulnerable children in emergency circumstances, and the Agency must rely on SEAs.

52. However, there is nothing new in this, and the lack of placements is something that has been going on now for several years.

53. The Court has repeatedly expressed serious concern and reservations around the Agency specifically relying on an SEA as an option for children in care.

54. This case highlights again the placement crisis that exists for children in the care of the State and how that crisis is impacting on the safety and welfare of children in care and placing them at an increased risk of harm.

55. In the absence of a suitable appropriate placement option for this young boy, the Agency have placed him in an SEA for nearly three months. No other placement option has yet been identified.

56. This is a 13-year-old boy with 46 child protection referrals over the years and who has suffered from early exposure to addiction and conflict in the family home.

57. The child is described by the professionals involved as a very vulnerable young boy who has experienced significant trauma and neglect in his life to date. He is engaging in high risk-taking behaviour and placing himself at serious risk of harm. Indeed, the Court has been told there is a currently a risk to his life.

58. It is agreed by all the professionals involved that the SEA is clearly not suitable for for this child. The child has been missing from the placement for over a week. The Court was told at the most recent hearing that the staff in the SEA were not even aware at the time that the child was missing.

59. The child is believed to be involved with older adults and potentially being criminally exploited, and from his most recent worrying contact with the social worker it would appear he was under the influence of substances.

60. It is the view of this Court, and it is a view expressed on many occasions, that the use by the Agency of SEAs as a placement option for children in care, such as this young boy, must come to an end.

61. There is nothing special about these arrangements. They usually consist of a rented apartment, hotel room or B & B. The are unregulated and unregistered and cannot be routinely inspected by the regulatory body, meaning a lack of checks to ensure that children in care receive a high quality of care and are safe.

62. The fact that these Special Emergency Arrangements are owned by private businesses and individuals who are profiteering out of a placement crisis for the most vulnerable children in care is just wrong and shameful.

63. In the absence of regulatory oversight, the Court has been left in the position of having to include specific directions in court orders to ensure the Agency is complying with their own Standard Operating Procedures governing the operation of SEAs.

64. The Court directions include ensuring the placement is inspected prior to a child being placed in an SEA, that all staff in an SEA are vetted and approved and that a copy of the child’s care plan, safety plan and absence management plan is provided to the placement staff.

65. The Agency has a statutory responsibility and duty to protect this child, but, in the Court’s view, by placing him in an unregistered, unregulated, unsuitable and inappropriate placement, they are failing to comply with that statutory responsibility, and the child in care has been missing from his placement and is at an increased risk of harm.

66. At the most recent Court appearance the Agency indicated that it is taking steps to regularise the use of SEA’s. It was outlined that a process is now underway with private providers who run these placements encouraged to engage with the Agency with a view to becoming a registered service.

Conclusion

67. The Court wishes to acknowledge the hard work, commitment and dedication of the allocated social worker and her team leader dealing with this difficult challenging case.

68. Equally, the court-appointed Guardian ad Litem has worked very hard and collaboratively with the other professionals by advocating for the child’s best interests and the voice of the child in these proceedings.

69. The current circumstances of this case are deeply troubling and worrying. This vulnerable young boy is missing and at high risk of harm.

70. The priority is that he is found safe and well and returned to the care of the Agency.

71. However, it is also very clear that it is not in his bests interests that he continues to be placed in a Special Emergency Arrangement.

72. All the professionals in the case agree that the child is an intelligent, articulate, and lovely young boy who has experienced significant loss, neglect, and trauma in his life to date.

73. At the very least he deserves a suitable appropriate placement with a consistent routine and, when he is ready, the necessary therapeutic supports and services.

74. The Court will continue to monitor and keep this case under close review. The interim care order is granted for one week.

75. The section 47 application on behalf the Guardian ad Litem is granted with the Court making a direction that the Agency provide a suitable and appropriate registered placement to meet the needs of this child.

Conor Fottrell.

Judge of the District Court.

18 February 2026.