Child and Family Agency -v- M & anor

• Judge: Toale J.
• Judgment Date: 28 May 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] IEDC 3
• Case Outcome: Approved
• Court: District Court (Ireland)

[2015] IEDC 03

CHÚIRT DÚICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

Child and Family Agency (CFA)

Applicant

-AND-

M (mother) and J (father)

Respondents

In the matter of A and B, children.

GAL to A and B

1. This is an applicat ion under section 47 of t he Child Care Act 1991, for directions in respect of c hild A and B.

2. Sect ion 47 of the Child Care Act 1991 provides as follows:

“47.—Where a child is in the c are of the Child and Family Agency, t he

District Court may, of its own motion or on t he application of any person, give such direc tions and make suc h order on

any question affe cting t he welfare of the c hild as it thinks proper and may vary or dischar ge any suc h direction or order.

The direct ion sought in respect of eac h child is “that [the c hild] be permitted t o travel outside of the jurisdict ion for the purposes of

taking a holiday with [the c hild’s] foster c arers to [c ountry X] from the end of May 2015 to the start of June 2015”.

3. The not ices of application are dated late May 2015, and it is a ssumed that the s aid notices issued on that day. The applicat ions

were issued for hearing in late May 2015, and were heard on t hat dat e. The court reserved its decision to noon on the following day.

4. In this application, t he CFA were represente d by their solicitor. T he allocated social worker and the soc ial work team leader were

present throughout t he hearing. The mother was represented by counsel, instruct ed by her solicitor. T he father was represented by

counsel, instruct ed by his solicitor. The GAL was represented by counsel, instruct ed by her solicitor.

5. There has bee n significant involvement by the CFA with this family, including the children the subject matter of t his application,

and others.

6. A and B are currently in the care of the CFA, on foot of interim care orders pursuant to sec tion 17 of t he Child Care Act 1991,

which were granted on in 2014, which have subsequently been exte nded on a considerable number of occa sions.

7. There has bee n a considerable amount of litigation betwee n the parties in respec t of a variety of issues conc erning this family, and

these c hildren in particular. The court has to dat e been unable to proc eed to a full hearing of the application by t he CFA for a “full”

care order under sect ion 18 of the Child Care Act 1991 in respect of A and B. Hearing dates have previously been set and vac ated.

The parties have today indicat ed that they w ish the c ourt to se t new hearing dates. It will be a number of months before such a

hearing can occ ur. When it does occ ur it is anticipate d that the c omplexity of t he case is such and t he volume of evidence (inc luding

expert evidence) w ill be such that the hearing of the full care order application will take several weeks.

8. There have been no previous applications of t he nature of that being dealt with in this dec ision. During the period that A and B

have been in the c are of the CFA, they have be en on holiday previously with their foster c arers, including a holiday abroad. The

parents have c onsented to such holidays occurring.

9. The parents are not c onsenting to the holiday proposed for the c hildren with the fost er carers, w hich is proposed will commence in

late May 2015 i.e. in or about 3 days aft er the hearing of the application, and 9 days a fter the issue of the application. The

application for a direct ion, effec tively to permit the proposed holiday to proceed, has been fully cont ested.

10. I have heard evidence from D, the soc ial worker allocated t o A and B, from the GAL and from each of the parents, and I have

heard what was submitted by their respect ive legal representative .On t he evidence I am satisfied that

(a) The f oster c arers booked a holiday in March 2015, in country X, for t hemselves, A and B, and other c hildren.

The fost er ca rers are what is referred to by the CFA as “private fos ter ca rers”, i.e. engaged by an agenc y other that t he

CFA.

(b) Neither the fost er carers nor t heir agency informed the CFA of t he proposed holiday until 05.05.15. On that date, the

foster c arer’s fostering link social worker (employed by the “private” agency) informed the allocat ed worker of the

proposed holiday.

(c) T he parents w ere not informed of the proposed holiday until 10.05.15. On that date , they were informed of t he

proposed holiday by the allocat ed social worker. The pa rents immediately state d that they would not consent to t he

proposed holiday.

(d) The parents were co ntact ed again by t he allocated s ocial worker on 15.05.15, when they c onfirmed that they would

not c onsent to the proposed holiday.

(e) The parents were subsequently c ontacted by staff of the private agency regarding consent to the proposed holiday,

where the parents repeated t hat they would not c onsent to the proposed holiday.

(f) The children were informed of the proposed holiday in considerable detail by the fost er ca rers without co nsultation

with the CF A. While it is not c lear exact ly when the c hildren were informed, it was s imultaneous with or before t he

parents were informed and their consent s ought. The children have been informed that their parents are not consent ing

to t he proposed holiday.

(g) At an a cc ess visit on lat e may 2015 one of the c hildren asked the parents to consent to t he proposed holiday.

11. It is ac cepte d that where children are in the care of the CF A on interim care orders (as these c hildren are) then parental conse nt

is required for the children to travel out of t he jurisdict ion, and that if that parent al consent is not forthc oming or available, then an