It has emerged that a father who was attempting to maintain contact with his son while an interim care order was in place was told by social workers from the Child and Family Agency, Tusla, to “watch his child play” from outside the playground where the visitation was due to take place.
The barrister acting for the father subsequently made it clear that the father has asthma, anxiety and ADHD and that he could not wear a face mask “as he fears it could cause a panic attack. “
The father’s barrister also stated that both the mother and father of the child were very stressed, in particular, the father “who had not had access with his child” in several months.
The information about the case is referenced in the report published today by the Special Rapporteur on Child Protection, Professor Conor O’Mahony.
The Report provides an extensive examination of the impact of Covid-19 restrictions on the mental, educational, and physical well-being of children.
A more detailed review of the case has also been made available by the Child Law Reporting Project.
According to the CLRP, the father rejected the proposal to watch his son from a distance because he said, “he would not want a grown man standing outside of a playground watching his child play and that it was not right for him to have to do that in order to see his child.”
The CLRP went on to note that the father’s barrister told the court that the father understood what physical distancing means “and knows how far apart two metres is.”
The Special Rapporteur on Child Protection also highlighted a separate case in which a foster family was unwilling to run the risk of covid infection caused by facilitating access.
According to the Special Rapporteur, “the issue came to a head when the mother removed her mask during access and kissed her child goodbye.”
The judge in this case stated that “there is something disproportionate and unequal about children not having contact during the interim care order as the children could come back to their parents”, and he ordered Tusla to come up with a plan for access before the next hearing date.
Concern was also expressed by Prof O’Mahony about cases where although child access was granted, issues continued to arise because of the impact of social distancing measures.
One such case concerned a child who had consistently stated that she wished to return home. Despite this, access was restricted to Zoom calls before later being resumed outdoors in a park.
The mother complained that everyone was required to wear masks and gloves and her daughter was not permitted to eat the food she had brought.
The Special Rapporteur concluded by observing that the impact of restrictions in such cases “runs deeper than a temporary reduction in contact between parents and children.”
Prof O’Mahony said that it is firmly established in the case law of both the European Court of Human Rights and the Irish courts that placing a child in care is intended to be a temporary measure, “the ultimate aim of which should be the reunification of the child with his or her parents.”
“As such, temporary restrictions on access risk causing longer term damage to the relationship between children in care and their parents that may reduce the prospect of successful family reunification.”