Child and Family Agency -v- A & anor

• Judge: Horgan P.
• Judgment Date: 01 March 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IEDC 5
• Case Outcome: Approved
• Court: District Court (Ireland)

[2017] IEDC 05

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT DUBLIN METROPOLITAN DISTRICT

CHILD AND FAMILY AGENCY

APPLICANT

-AND-

A

RESPONDENT MOTHER

B

RESPONDENT FATHER

IN THE MATTER OF A CHILD, CHILD A

CHILD CARE ACT 1991 - SECTION 47 - NOTICE OF A PPLICATION- FOR DIRECTIONS ON A QUESTION AFFECT ING THE WELFARE OF A

CHILD

[Note: This ve rsion of the original decision delivered is prepared for the purpose of publication. Any c hanges from to the

original are intended only to be as t o form and not as to substanc e, and are for t he purpose of reducing t he possibility of

identification of t he children.]

Overview

1. Application under sect ion 47 of the Child Care Act, 1991 to dispense with the c onsent of parents of a c hild in ‘voluntary ca re’ of

the Child and Family Agenc y [hereinafter referred to a s the “Agenc y”] to the issue of a passport so that the c hild can go on a holiday

to anot her jurisdiction wit h the fost er carers.

Introduction

2. The matter bef ore the Court is w ith respect to Child A. The cent ral issue before the Court is what orders would be in the child’s

best interest s, having regard to t he legal principles applicable for a child in care under sec tion 4, 16, 24 and sec tion 47 of t he Child

Care Act , 1991.

3. The c hild was received into voluntary care of the A gency shortly after birth. T he mother and father of t he child did not register t he

child’s birth and the Agency was unable to affec t the registration of t he child’s birth. The parents object to t he proposed holiday. In

the c ase of the mother the objec tion is based on her view that t he child is too young to t ravel this distanc e and it would aff ect her

acc ess arrangements with the child and the c hild’s siblings. In the c ase of the fat her it is based on t he fact t hat he has recently been

released from prison and is trying to build up a relationship with the c hild. Both parents are working towards est ablishing a good

relationship with the child so t hat t hat t hey are in a position to provide full time c are for the c hild, as her parents.

4. The Court hea rd evidence from the allocat ed Soc ial Worker.

Preliminary Observations

5. The parents were put on notice of the applicat ion to t he court and were served wit h a co py of t he Notice of Application under

sect ion 47 together with a draft Grounding Affidavit of the Social Worker. The c ourt hearing date was delayed by a nat ional holiday.

The parents were not present or legally represented in the procee dings. Having heard evidence from Social Worker the Court

adjourned the matter to allow t he parents t o seek legal advice a nd representation in relation to t he proceedings. T hey were not

present in court on the adjourned date.

6. The Agenc y has known about the proposed holiday for several months but only made the applicat ion to the Court five days before

the holiday was due t o commence.

7. The ev idence of t he Social Worker was t hat t he application was purposely delayed until the parents had fully co-ope rated with

registering the birth of the child and this process was largely achieved by the t ime they issued their proceedings. The Court was

informed that the mother was previously married to a man who is not the c hild’s father, and so t he registration process was

complicated. T he seco nd named party to the within proceedings is the c hild’s father.

8. The Soc ial Worker had three meetings with the parents in the previous month in relation to the proposed holiday however t he

parents remained steadfast in t heir refusal to conse nt to the holiday. For t his reason the Agenc y applied to dispense wit h their

consent to issue a passport for t heir child and the sundry other direct ions sought to enable the fost er carers to bring the child with

them for a holiday.

9. The respondent mother has other children in the care o f the A gency and it was ac knowledged that s he was served with minimal

notice of the proc eedings. The Court was informed that it wa s initially thought that she would att end the initial Court procee dings.

The mother’s legal representatives were not present in c ourt. The Court was informed that t he Agency cont act ed the mother’s

previous legal representatives to alert them to t he within application but wa s informed that the mother had not a pplied for civil legal

aid in this matter and so thes e solicitors had no instruc tions in relation to t he application before t he Court.

Legal Submissions

10. The Agenc y submitted that the Rec eption into Care Agreement execute d by the respondent mother in accordanc e with sec tion 4

of the Child Care Act, 1991 was in esse nce “open e nded”. The f irst page of t he Form estimated that the period of voluntary c are was

to be f or a period of “six months”. The parents did not request the Agency t o return the child to their c are when this period expired.

The allocat ed Social Worker to t he case stat ed in her evidence that e fforts w ere made to extend t he voluntary care agreement when

she was allocat ed to the c ase, however the mother declined to do so stat ing that s he needed time to disc uss the matte r with the

respondent father and in t he event a sec ond agreement was not s igned by either parent.

11. It was s ubmitted t hat the Agency had engaged with bot h parents and ent ered into “cont racts ” with t hem to ensure that t hey

have a “road map” towards family reunification This would enable the parents to understand t he steps the Agenc y required them to