Child neglect, addiction, and children missing from and absconding from State care are all key issues before Irish courts, according to 77 individual court reports on child care proceedings released today.
The reports were compiled and released by the Child Law Project, which attends child protection cases in the family courts, which are not open to the public. It publishes such reports of proceedings in bi-annual volumes. Today’s is the first new volume of reports published in 18 months.
‘DISTRESSED’ NON-NATIONAL CHILD SUSPECTED OF BEING TRAFFICKED FOR SEX
In one case before the courts, Dublin District Court granted an interim care order (ICO) for a non-national child who was suspected of having been trafficked to Ireland and involved in the sex trade.
The Child and Family Agency applied for the ICO after an emergency care order (ECO) had been granted as a result of a referral made to the gardai by a passer-by who had found the child on the street, “extremely distressed and very unwell.”
The social worker said that the child had been living in Ireland for approximately one year but had no English. The child told the social worker that she never knew her parents. She was raised by her grandparents, but her grandfather died in 2021 and her grandmother in 2023. The child was homeless after her grandmother died.
The report states: “A family had then said that they would take care of her and give her a good life, but they later sold her to a man who brought her to Ireland. The child had been trafficked for sex and suffered physical and sexual abuse.”
The child said she had been homeless for the past year and was sleeping rough, however the gardai said that she did not look like she was sleeping on the streets for a year as she was tidy, though very unwell. She had no contacts in Ireland and did not have the contact details for the man who had brought her to Ireland.
The child had said that she would go to restaurants and other businesses run by her compatriots and ask for help and that sometimes they would give her a place to sleep for the night. The social worker said that the child had arrived with just the clothes on her back and was particularly vulnerable.
Even though she had been in Ireland for the past year she had no English at all. Also, she had limited education as she had only completed three years of education in her home country because her grandparents could not afford education. After she had been taken out of school, she had helped her grandparents sell merchandise on the streets.
The child had been brought to a doctor and prescribed antibiotics, after which she would be tested for sexually transmitted diseases. The social worker said that the child had become very distressed when she disclosed sensitive information, however she was open about what had happened to her. The social worker said that there were no concerns relating to the child’s age except that she was a particularly vulnerable child who would age out the next year.
The child had been placed in a high need placement specifically for unaccompanied minors.
A guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed for the child and she was scheduled to attend a specialist interview with the gardai. The placement had identified an English language school that offered daily English language classes which would be more useful to the child than classes held only a couple of times a week.
The court granted the interim care order. The judge noted that the child had no guardian to care for her and that the English language, education and integration would be a challenge for her.
‘FRIGHTENING’: THREE-MONTH-OLD BABY SUSTAINED ‘SEVERE’ INURIES
In a case before a District Court in a regional town, a full care order until the age of 18 was granted where a three-month old had suffered “severe and traumatic” injuries a few years earlier while in the care of his parents. Both parents consented to the order. While the mother was in court, the father’s solicitor informed the judge that he would not be attending.
The court heard that the child, a boy, had been under interim care orders since he was taken into care from the hospital where he had been brought as a baby with serious injuries.
A paediatrician who was on call at the hospital accident and emergency department where the baby was brought said that the child was “clearly very unwell and he presented as pale, lethargic and very floppy,” with bruises on the left side of his head, ear and neck. He confirmed that it was a life-or-death scenario.
He said the baby was given an urgent blood transfusion and then underwent a full body skeletal Xray from head to toe. He underwent special brain tests which showed a bleed on his brain. He said that the CFA, the Gardaí and the medical social worker were all contacted immediately under hospital protocol, as staff were immediately concerned about non-accidental injury. The baby, the doctor said, was immobile, had presented with multiple bruises and blood on an outer layer of the brain.
The baby had suffered several fractures which included a including a fractured skull bone on the left side, fractures on both arms at the wrist, fractured bones of the left and right legs, swelling on the knees and broken left and right ribs.
The paediatrician said it was clear that the injury to the child’s skull was from a trauma to the head which would have been a forceful impact. He confirmed that the baby was underweight and malnourished and that some of the fractures were fresh, but others were old fractures which were healing.
The paediatrician, when asked in court about how the parents had interacted with medical staff, said that the father had claimed the baby was in his lap and he was rocking him when he became floppy and they decided to call an ambulance. But they offered no further explanation as to how the baby’s injuries occurred and they repeatedly told the medical staff that they did not know what happened.
The doctor added that they did not react when they were told how sick he was, and they “did not ask a single question about his condition or treatment.”
The paediatrician confirmed that he had reviewed the child several times since he first came to the hospital, and he was now meeting his developmental milestones.
The social worker confirmed that a full care order until the child is 18 was being sought. She said that this application was based on the child’s significant injuries that could have resulted in his death, together with serious neglect, and that the most likely perpetrator of these injuries was one or both parents. She said that the child was doing very well now but if he was returned to his parents his health, welfare and development would be severely compromised. She confirmed that there was no application for access by the parents before the Court.
UNACCOMPANIED MINOR TAKEN INTO CARE
In another case, an interim care order for a teenager, who was an unaccompanied minor, was granted by Dublin District Court. The teenager’s mother was based in north-east Africa and the father had been killed by an Islamic militia.
The solicitor for the Child and Family Agency informed the court that the CFA had tried to contact the mother on a number of occasions but the social worker had been unable to have any meaningful contact with her. The solicitor said that the teenager did have some contact with the mother.
The CFA had established the age of the teenager and were satisfied that there was no parent in this jurisdiction.
The court heard that following the father’s death, the teenager had subsequently travelled to the nearest city as he had also been injured by the Islamic militia. He had left his country with the assistance of a family member and had travelled through a number of other countries before reaching Ireland.
The social workers said they would support his application for international protection.
The judge granted the interim care order and noted the teenager was receiving support for English and translators were provided as required. The judge noted the mother was in Africa and the father was deceased.
UNACCOMPANIED TEENAGE BOY SMUGGLED INTO IRELAND
In another case, a district court judge in a provincial city granted the Child and Family Agency (CFA) a full care order under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991 in respect of the teenage boy who came originally from central Asia. The judge granted the care order until the teenager reached 18 years of age.
The solicitor for the CFA told the court that there had been difficulties in bringing the application forward as it had no date of birth for the child to demonstrate that he was in fact a minor. The agency made contact with UK authorities to ascertain his age – with the court hearing that the teenager had had no documentation with him to confirm his date of birth and his family had been unable to obtain any official records due to the current regime in control of his country of origin. He said that the boy wanted to be here in Ireland and that if he were to be returned to the UK, he had told the social worker that he would abscond from there.
“The social work team leader said that the boy had left his home country some time the previous year and that he had travelled through several countries including Iran, Turkey, Bulgaria, Serbia, Italy, France, and the UK before arriving in Ireland. He had travelled with a smuggler into this country and had presented himself to the International Protection Office, which had subsequently referred him on to the CFA. The teenager had stayed for a number of days in the UK where it appeared he had been in care,” the report details.
The judge granted the full care order until the teenager turns 18 years of age.
DUBLIN HOME HAD NO HOT WATER, FRIDGE OR WASHING MACHINE
Dublin District Court granted an application for an Emergency Care Order for a primary school aged old boy following his school principal contacting the Gardai as she was concerned about his mother’s behaviour.
The Garda described how the school principal had expressed “severe concern” at the respondent mother’s aggressive behaviour when she attempted to collect the boy from school.
A senior soocial worker described how the mother of the child “said she diid not believe the social workers were real,” and that she made threats, including that she would leave the jurisdiction with the boy, and/or slit her and his throats if attempts were made to remove him from her care.
In this case, Dublin City Council had cleared a “huge build-up of domestic waste” from the family home. The boiler and back window were broken, but the Council had been unable to gain entry in order to make repairs. The support worker described the state of the home as having no fridge, no washing machine, a broken cooker, no hot water or heat.
There was evidence of drug use in the home, including tablets and crack cocaine. She said that the boy’s bedroom was “ok”, compared to the rest of the home, but that, in her opinion, he “needs to be able to have a shower and be warm”.
A private family arrangement was in place, whereby the boy spent a lot of time at his maternal grand-aunt’s home. A sample routine was that he would go to her house, change into his school uniform (which she maintained for him), go to school, have hot meals, and attend extra-curricular activities from there. His grand aunt had enrolled him in drama club and boxing club, and brought him to medical appointments.
The mother, who was called to give evidence, denied threatening to slit her or the boy’s throat. She accepted that her home did not have appliances, but was hopeful that the Roomkeepers funding would resolve that.
She did not accept the suggestion that she had mental health issues, and said she had no formal mental health diagnosis. Referring to her family, she described feeling “like everyone was against me, out to hurt me”.
She said: “I’m less addicted to drugs now”, but accepted that she had never offered to give or given samples for urinalysis. The solicitor for the CFA asked: “When did you last take drugs?”. The mother answered: “Yesterday, I took cocaine and smoked weed after they took him away”. The solicitor asked: “Do you understand the impact that your drug use has on him?”. The mother said: “I do understand”, adding “it doesn’t affect him”.
He summarised evidence heard from the Garda and family support worker, and how the senior social worker had described her presentation as “agitated, threatening, unstable, and unable to provide care”. The Judge noted that the boy expressed his wish to go to his grand-aunt’s, “and I must give weight to his views”. The judge said: “No doubt he will want to live with Mum eventually.” He said that the mother’s evidence “did not align with the Garda’s.”