District Court extends interim care order for missing 13-year-old child pending suitable registered placement.

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 No. 2 of Judge Conor Fottrell delivered on the 26th 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 on 17 November 2025.

3. The case was last before the court on 18 February when the order was extended for one week.

4. The Guardian ad Litem brought an application under section 47 of the Act seeking a court direction for a suitable placement for the child. That application was granted on

18 February by court order, directing the Agency to provide a suitable and appropriate registered placement to meet the needs of this child.

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

6. 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, while also complying with the requirements of the Act.

7. The respondent father and maternal grandfather attended court again today represented by solicitor and counsel. An advocate also attended court with the grandfather.

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

9. This is the fourth time in two weeks this case has come before the Court where the child is still missing from care, where the placement option for the child was a Special Emergency Arrangement (“SEA”).

10. This decision is an update to the court decision published on 18 February, which also sets out the child’s background and his family circumstances.

Current Position:

11. The Court heard updated evidence from the allocated social worker and courtappointed Guardian ad Litem.

12. The child remains missing in care, and apart from a very brief period when he returned to the SEA, he has now been missing for 10 days.

13. The social worker and the Guardian ad Litem outlined to the Court that they are extremely concerned for the child’s safety and wellbeing with the social worker expressing a view that there is an immediate risk to the child’s life and he poses a risk to himself and others.

14. In addition, the Court was informed that over the last week, it is reported that the child had been assaulted.

15. The Guardian ad Litem has been in regular phone contact with the child who indicated that he may be staying with a friend. In one phone conversation with the child, it is reported that the child indicated that he would not return to the SEA as “he hates the place” and “he does nothing there” and will just “leave again if he is returned.”

16. The child admitted that he had been assaulted by an older individual but further said he did not require medical attention. Throughout the conversations with the Guardian ad Litem the child sounded consistently fatigued and spoke in a quiet, faint tone.

17. The child has expressed a wish to return to live with his grandfather and wanted to reconnect with his father, noting that he just wants a “normal life.”

18. The social worker updated the Court that a referral to special care has been submitted and is due to be considered at the meeting of the committee next week.

19. In the meantime, a residential placement for the child has now been identified and subject to some final approvals that will be available to the child shortly.

20. The Court was also provided with letters from wider family members expressing their deep concern and worry for the child.

Conclusion:

21. The Court believes it is important that a written account and record of what has transpired in this case is provided and published.

22. The position outlined to the Court again today, and for the fourth time in two weeks, remains very concerning.

23. This is a 13-year-old vulnerable child in the care of the Agency, with a court order to provide a suitable and appropriate registered placement to meet the needs of this child, who remains missing in care.

24. All professionals agree that the situation is extremely urgent and that the child presents as a significant risk while he remains missing. The priority is that this child is found safe and well and returned to the care of the Agency.

25. All professionals further agree that the SEA placement was completely unsuitable and inappropriate for the child.

26. In a report for the Court hearing today the Guardian ad Litem outlines that they are “increasingly concerned that as time continues to pass without an appropriate placement being identified, the child’s situation is deteriorating and opportunities to stabilize the child safely are being reduced” and “at a minimum an urgently identified registered residential placement capable of providing structure, supervision and therapeutic intervention is required.”

27. The Court welcomes the update provided by the Agency today and following the court direction made last week that a registered placement has now been identified subject to final approvals.

28. This is a young boy who is bright and intelligent, and he deserves the opportunity to be like any other 13-year-old boy. He should be attending school, playing sports and doing everyday normal activities for a child his age.

29. It is a worrying situation that the child’s behaviour and risk taking has increased since he has come into care. Arguably, he was at even greater risk of harm when placed in a SEA.

30. The Court extends the interim care order for one week.

Conor Fottrell.

Judge of the District Court.

26th February 2026.