The Right of the Child to be Heard: The Case for Child Participation in Foster Care Proceedings

• Author: Donna Marie McNamara
• Position: BCL (Law and Society) (DCU), LLM (Health and Care Law) (UCC), PhD Candidate, School of Law and Government, Dublin City University
• Pages: 151-174

© 2016 Donna Marie McNamara and Dublin University Law Society

THERIGHTOFTHECHILDTOBEHEARD:

THECASEFORCHILDPARTICIPATIONINFOSTER

CAREPROCEEDINGS

DONNAMARIEMCNAMARA*

Introduction

FostercarehasexistedinIrelandsincethetimeofBrehonLaws,whenit

wasusedas ameansofcaringforunwanted,abandoned,ororphaned

children.1Fostercaretodayinvolvestheplacementof achildinan

alternativefamilyenvironmentknownas afosterfamily.2Thereare

approximately6,463childreninIrelandlivinginstatecare,with93%of

thosechildrenlivinginfosterhomes.3ChildreninthecareoftheStateface

particulardisadvantagesanddiscriminationthroughouttheirlives,

especiallywithregardtohavingtheirvoiceheardinmattersaffectingthem.

TheUNDayofGeneralDiscussiononChildrenwithoutParentalCare

highlightedtheconcernthatchildrenareoftennotheardinseparationand

placementproceedings.4TheUNCommitteeontheRights oftheChild

[hereinaftertheCommittee]found“decision-makingprocessesdonot

attachenoughweighttochildren … eventhoughthesedecisionshave a far-

reachingimpactonthechild’slifeandfuture.”5TheCommitteeurgedall

statestostrengthentheireffortsinimplementingtherightofthechildtobe

heard,asestablishedbyArticle12oftheConventionontheRightsofthe

Child[hereinaftertheCRC].6

* BCL (Law and Society) (DCU), LLM (Health and Care Law) (UCC), PhD Candidate, School

of Law and Government, Dublin City University. The author would like to thank Dr Sarah M.

Field for her supervision and insightful comments on this research. Allerrors and omissions

remain the author’s own.

1 Geoffrey Shannon, Child Law (Thomson Round Hall, 2005), at 272.

2Ibid., at144. Shannon observes that there isno legislative definition of what foster care entails

which may be because of its complex nature and the “evolution of a broad spectrum of foster

placements.”

3 Tusla Child and Family Agency, Annual Report

(visited 27 January

2016), at 27

4 Committee on the Rights of the Child, Day of General Discussion on Children without

parental care (UN Doc. CRC/C/153, 2005), at [663].

5Ibid.

6Ibid., at [664].

Trinity College Law Review [Vol 19

152

In2013, a surveyconductedbyEmpoweringPeopleinCareoffoster

childreninIrelandidentifiedthekeyissueswhichaffecttheirlivesincare.7

Ofthechildrensurveyed,37%reportedthattheirplacementintocarewas

themostimportantissuetothemandnotedthatthiswas a decisioninwhich

theywouldmostliketoparticipate.8Forthepurposesofthisarticle,the

placementofthechildintocarewillbeusedasthemainexampleofa

decision-makingprocessinwhichthechildcouldandshouldengage.This

procedureisarguablythemostimportantdecisionwhichwillbemade

duringthechild’stimeincareandhas a directimpactonhiswelfare,

interests,well-being,development,andhappiness.

Thisarticlewillexaminetherightofthechildtobeheardinthe

contextoftherightsofchildrenlivinginalternativeformsofcare

(specificallyfostercare)toparticipateincareplacementdecision-making.

PartOnewillexaminetherightsofchildreninalternativecareplacements

pursuanttotheCRC.PartTwowillanalysetherightsofchildrento

participateinmattersrelatingtothem.TheIrishState’sobligationsunder

Article12CRCwillalsobescrutinised.PartThreewilladdresstherights

offosterchildreninIrishlawbywayofreferencetotheconstitutionalrights

ofthechild andtheChildCareAct1991[hereinafterthe1991Act].

I.General Rights of Foster Childrenunderthe UN

Convention on the Rights of the Child

In1989,theadoptionof theCRCbytheUNGeneralAssemblyreaffirmed

thepositionofchildrenasrights-holderswithininternationallaw.TheCRC

providesanextensiveframeworkforthepromotionandtheprotectionof

children’srightsworldwide.9IrelandratifiedtheCRCwithoutreservation

in1992,buthasstruggledtocomplywiththestandardscontainedtherein.10

Inparticular,theStatehasfailedtorecognisetherightofthechildto

7Empowering People inCare, Annual Report 2013

content/uploads/2015/04/EPIC_Annual_Report_Final_2013.pdf> (visited 12 August 2014).

8Ibid.

9 UNICEF, State of the World's Children: Celebrating 20 Years of the Convention on the Rights

of the Child (UNICEF, 2009), at 1.

10 In January 2016, Ireland’s compliance with the CRC was examined by the Committee on

the Rights of the Child (the monitoring body of the CRC). Among the issues raised, Ireland’s

direct provision system was questioned, along with child poverty rates and child homelessness.

See The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, Report to the UN Committee on the

Rights of the Child on Ireland’s Combined Third and Fourth Periodic Reports

_the_child.pdf> (visited 26 January 2016).

2016]The Right of the Child to be Heard

153

participateinproceedingsrelatingtoher.Article12CRCaffordsall

childrentherighttoparticipateinalljudicialandadministrativedecisions

affectingtheirlivesandtherighttohavetheseviewsaffordeddueweight

accordingtotheirageandlevelofmaturity.11Thereisanobligationonall

statestoensurethatthisrightisrespectedandtoaddressissuesof

discriminationwheretheyarise,especiallywithregardtovulnerable

childrensuchasthoselivingincare.Theymustbe“enabledtoparticipate

inallmattersaffectingthemonanequalbasiswithallotherchildren.”12

Forchildrenwithoutparentalcare, thebroaderrightsoftheCRCarealso

applicable.However,therearespecificrightswithinArticle20CRCwhich

concerntheprovisionofalternativecarefor a childwhois“temporarilyor

permanentlydeprivedofhisorherfamilyenvironmentorinwhoseown

bestinterestscannotbeallowedtoremaininthatenvironment.”13Article

20(2)CRCprovidesthatinsuchcasesthereisanonusontheStateto

providealternativecareforthechild,whichincludestheprovisionoffoster

care.14IntheGuidelinesfortheAlternativeCareofChildrenadoptedbythe

UNGeneralAssemblyin2009,itisstatedthateverychildshouldlivein a

supportiveenvironmentthatpromoteshisfullpotential.15Itis

acknowledgedthatfostercareofferssuchanenvironmentandisthemost

favourablesolutionforchildrenwhocannotberaisedintheirownfamily

homes,accordingtoArticle20(3)CRC.16

Article20CRCdoesnotspecifya rightfor a childtobeheardincare

proceedings.However,theCommitteehasstatedthatthisrightisimplicitly

protectedunderArticle12CRC,whichmeansthatbothoftheseprovisions

mustbeinterpretedinconjunctionwithoneanother.17AsArticle12CRCis

a generalprinciple,thisprovisionguidestheimplementationoftheother

rights,includingArticle20CRC.Therefore,childrenincarehave a rightto

11 CRC, Article 12.

12 Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 12: The Right of the Child to

be Heard (UNCRC/C/GC/12, 2009), at [75] [hereinafter General Comment No. 12].

13 CRC, Article 20(1).

14CRC, Article 20(3) defines alternative care as “foster placement, kafalah of Islamic law,

adoption or if necessary placement insuitable institutions for the care of children. When

considering solutions, due regard shall be paid to the desirability of continuity ina child’s

upbringing and to the child’s ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background.”

15UN General Assembly, Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children(UN Doc.

A/HRC/11/L.13, 2009) [hereinafter The Guidelines].

16 CRC, Article 20(3).

17 The Guidelines, note 15.

Trinity College Law Review [Vol 19

154

befacilitatedasparticipantswithintheplacementprocess.18The2009

GuidelinesforAlternativeCarearealsounderpinnedby acommitmentto

childparticipationrights,whereinitisstated thatalldecisions:

[S]houldrespectfullythechild’srighttobeconsultedandtohave

his/herviewsdulytakenintoaccountinaccordancewithhis/her

evolvingcapacities,andonthebasisofhis/heraccesstoallnecessary

information.Everyeffortshouldbemadetoenablesuchconsultation

andinformationprovisiontobecarriedoutinthechild’spreferred

language.19

Assuch,inthecontextofcareplacementproceedings,childrenmustbe

heardatalltimesduringtheadministrativeplanningorassessmentsandthe

judicialhearings.20Whilethisrightappliestoallchildrenintheory,research

suggeststhatinpracticeparticipationrightshavenotbeenrealisedformany

fosterchildren.21Participationhasbeendefinedas a multi-layeredconcept

whichembracestheoriesofbothprocessandoutcome.22Inthecontextof

humanrights,itmeansmuchmorethanallowingonetotakepart.Rather,it

refersto a moremeaningfulengagementwhichoneexercisesindecision-

makingprocesses.23InGeneralCommentNo. 12 ontherightofthechildto

beheard,theCommitteerecognisedtheroleofparticipationinseveral

settings.24Withregardtothechild’srighttobeheardinjudicial

proceedings,itissaidthatthe“proceedingsshouldbeconductedinan

atmosphereenablingthechildtoparticipateandtoexpressher/himself

freely.”25

18 Committee on the Rights of the Child, Treaty-Specific Guidelines Regarding the Form and

Content of Periodic Reports to be Submitted by States Parties under Article 44, paragraph 1

(b), of the Convention on the Rights (UN Doc. CRC/C/58/Rev.2, 2010), at [23]-[27].

19 The Guidelines, note 15, at [6].

20 CRC, Article 12(2).

21 Hanne Warming, ‘“How Can You Know? You’re Not a Foster Child:’ Dilemmas and

Possibilities of Giving Voice to Children in Foster Care’ Children” (2006) 16(2) Youth and

Environments 28, at 30. The topic of this article relates to participation rights within research;

however the barriers for effective communication with children in care are also relevant to this

discussion.

22 Perpetua Kirby, Claire Lanyon, Kathleen Cronin and Ruth Sinclair, Building a Culture of

Participation: Involving Young People in Policy, Service Planning, Delivery and Evaluation

(Department of Education and Skills, 2003).

23 Gerison Lansdown, Can You Hear Me? The Right of Young Children to Participate in

Decisions Affecting Them (Bernard van Leer Foundation, 2005), at 12.

24 General Comment No. 12, note 12.

25Ibid., at [14].

2016]The Right of the Child to be Heard

155

Inrecentyears,therehasbeengrowingrecognitionthatchildren

shouldbemoreinvolvedindecision-makingprocesseswhichaffecttheir

lives.AstraeaAugsbergerconductedresearchin2014ontheengagement

ofchildreninfostercareplanningandconcludedthattherearemany

benefitstolisteningtochildreneffectively.26Shenotesthatempowering

childrentoengageasactiveparticipantsteachesthemvaluableskillswhich

enhancetheir development,impartsknowledgeabouttheirrights,and

providesthemwith a senseofcontrolinthedecision-makingprocess.27Itis

inthiswaythatlisteningtochildrenaffirmstheirdignityandacknowledges

theirrighttoactasautonomousagentsinlinewiththeaimofArticle12

CRC.28 AreportconductedbytheDepartmentofChildrenandYouth

AffairsinIrelandin2011foundthattheexistingstructuresdesignedto

facilitatethevoiceofthechildlivinginstatecareshouldbereviewed,and

a cultureofparticipationshouldbedevelopedwhichwouldensure

consultationwithyoungpeopleonthekeyissueswhichaffecttheirlives.29

Inlightofthisfinding,itissubmittedthatitisimportanttosupportchildren

livinginfosterhomesandtoprovideopportunitiestoparticipateinall

mattersrelatingtothem.30ThefollowingsectionwillexamineArticle12

CRCwith a viewtowardsdeterminingwhatthisrighttoparticipatemeans

forchildrenandthedifferentwaysinwhichtheycanbesupportedtoensure

statecompliancewiththeCRC.

II.The Right of the Childto Participate underArticle 12

CRC

Article12CRCconsistsoftwocomponents:therightofthechildtoexpress

hisviewsfreelyinalldecision-making,andtherightofthechildtoengage

26Astraea Augsberger, “Strategies for engaging foster care youth inpermanency planning

family team conferences” (2014) 43 Children and Youth Services Review 51, at 52.

27Ibid.

28 General Comment No. 12, note 12, at [82]. An important part of the child’s participation is

allowing the child the opportunity todecide their level of involvement in the process. This

starts by providing the child with child-friendly information concerning the hearing. Article 17

CRC isalso of note as this provides a right tochildren toaccessinformation which isa

“prerequisite for the effective realization of the right to express views.”

29Department of Children and Youth Affairs, Listento our voices! Hearing Children and

Young People Living in the Care of the State(Government Publications, 2011) Minister’s

Foreword.

30 CRC, Article 12.

Trinity College Law Review [Vol 19

156

oneither a directoranindirectbasisintheprocess.31Thisformsthe

foundationofArticle12(1)CRCandArticle12(2)CRCrespectively.The

languageusedinbothofthesesubsectionsisofnoteasitconveys a clear

statementofthechild’srighttoparticipatewhilstimposingstringent

obligationswithwhichstatesmustcomply.32

A.Article12(1)CRC

Article12(1)CRCprovides:

StatesPartiesshallassuretothechildwhoiscapableofforminghis

orherownviewstherighttoexpressthoseviewsfreely inallmatters

affectingthechild,theviewsofthechildbeinggivendueweightin

accordancewiththeageandmaturityofthechild.33

i.!Capable of Forming his or her Own Views

TherightscontainedinArticle12CRCareaffordedtoallchildrenwhoare

capableofformingtheirownviews.34Thisrequirementisnotdependent

upontheageorlevelofmaturityofthechild.35TheCommitteehasprovided

someguidanceinrelationtothis,statingthatallstateparties“should

presumethata childhasthecapacitytoformhisorherownviewsand

recognisethatsheorhehastherighttoexpressthem.”36Thereisnodutyon

thechildtoproveherlevelofcapacityinanycase.37Rather,thereisanonus

ontheStatetoassessthecapacityofthechildtoformanautonomous

31 General Comment No. 12, note 12, at [1]: “Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the

Child (the Convention) is a unique provision in a human rights treaty; itaddresses the legal and

social status of children, who, on the one hand lack the full autonomy of adults but, on the

other, are subjects of rights.”

32 Marie-Francoise Lücker-Babel, “The Right of the Child to Express Views and to be Heard:

An Attempt to Interpret Article 12 of the UNConvention on the Rights of the Child” (1995) 3

International Journal of Children’s Rights 391.

33 CRC, Article 12(1).

34 This does not mean that a child is incapable of participating if they are young or suffering

from a disability; asthe very essences of the CRC is rooted in the concept of non-discrimination

(Article 2).

35 Laura Lundy, “’Voice’ is Not Enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of the Child” (2007) 33(6) British Educational Research Journal

927, at 935.

36 General Comment No. 12, note 12, at 20.

37Ibid.

2016]The Right of the Child to be Heard

157

opiniontothegreatestextentpossible.38LauraLundynotesthatthe

expression“capableofforming a view”isnotdependentuponthechild’s

capacitytoexpress a matureview.39Rather,itisdependentonthechild’s

abilitytoform a viewofhis own.40Article 5 CRCisalsorelevantinthis

context,asitrecognisestheevolvingcapacityofthechildandrequiresstates

toprovideappropriatedirectionandguidancetothechildintheexerciseof

herrights.

ii.!The Right to Express those Views Freely

Article12CRCgivesallchildrentherighttoexpresstheirviewsfreely,

whichreferstotherightnottobeinducedorpressuredintoexpressinga

particularwish.Theword“freely”isimportantasitis“intrinsicallyrelated

tothechild’s‘own’perspective:thechildhastherighttoexpressherorhis

ownviewsandnottheviewsofothers.”41AccordingtotheCommittee,this

alsomeansthatthechildisentitledtodecidebyhimselfwhetherhewishes

toexercisehisrighttoparticipateatall.42Therefore,“Statespartiesmust

ensureconditionsforexpressingviewsthataccountforthechild’s

individualandsocialsituationandanenvironmentinwhichthechildfeels

respectedandsecurewhenfreelyexpressingherorhisopinions.”43Lundy

notes theimportanceofthereferenceto“anenvironment”inwhichthechild

feelssecure,asthisensuresthebestoutcomefortheproceedings.44Gerison

Lansdownalsoaddressesthisandfindsthattoooften“children’scapacities

areunderestimatedbecauseofanadultfailuretocreateanenvironmentin

whichchildrencanarticulatetheirviewsappropriately.”45Itisvitalthat

decision-makersmakespecialaccommodationforchildrenduring

proceedingsinordertofacilitate a child-friendlydiscussion.46

38Ibid., at 44. In regards to conducting this assessment, there is no further guidance at present.

The Committee made reference tothis inGeneral Comment No. 12 and saidthat “good practice

for assessing the capacity of the child has to be developed.”

39Ibid.

40See Rebecca M. Stahl, “‘Don’t Forget About Me’: Implementing Article 12 of the United

Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child” (2007) 24(3) Ariz J Int'l & Comp L803.

41 General Comment No. 12, note 12, at 23.

42Ibid.

43Ibid.,at 23.

44 Lundy, note 35, at 935.

45 Lansdown, note 23.

46Y. Penny Lancaster and Vanessa Broadbent, Listening to Young Children (Open University

Press, 2003).

Trinity College Law Review [Vol 19

158

iii.!A Child’s View Shall Be Afforded Due Weight According to

their Age and Maturity

Theweightwhich adecision-makerwillaffordtothechild’sviewsis

perhapsthemostimportantfactorintheprocess.47Accordingtothe

Committee,“Article12stipulatesthatsimplylisteningtothechildis

insufficient;theviewsofthechildhavetobeseriouslyconsideredwhenthe

childiscapableofformingherorhisownviews.”48Article12CRCalso

stipulatesthattheviewsofthechildwillbegivendueweightinaccordance

withherageandmaturity.49ThisisfurtherreflectedinArticle 5 CRC,which

recognisestheevolvingcapacitiesofchildren.50Theageofthechildisthe

firstfactortobeconsideredwhendeterminingtheweightofhisview.

Ultimately,thephrasingofArticle12CRCmeansthatthedecision-maker

willmorelikelybepersuadedbythewishesof a sixteenyearoldthan a five

yearold,astheformerislikelymorecapableofmakinganinformed

decision.51Regardless,thefiveyearoldhasthesamerightsastheolder

child.52Thecruxofthematteristhatthedecision-makerwilllikelybemore

inclinedtoconsidertheviewsofanolderchildmoreseriouslyasshelikely

has a greaterlevelofunderstandingwhichmakestheprocessmorestraight-

forwardtoan extent.

Additionally,thechild’slevelofmaturitydeterminestheweightof

theviewsinpractice.MaturityisdefinedintheGeneralCommentas“the

abilitytounderstandandassesstheimplicationsof a particularmatter…in

thecontextofArticle12,itisthecapacityof a childtoexpressherorhis

viewsonissuesin a reasonableandindependentmanner.Theimpactofthe

47 Michelle Fernando, “Express Recognition of the UNConvention on the Rights of the Child

in the FamilyLawAct: What Impact for Children’s Participation?” (2013) 36(1) UNSW Law

Journal 88, at 98.

48 General Comment No 12, note 12, at 28.

49 CRC, Article 12(1).

50 CRC, Article 5. Seealso General Comment No. 12, note 12, at 84: “Consequently, the child

has a right to direction and guidance, which have to compensate for the lack of knowledge,

experience and understanding of the child and are restricted by his or her evolving capacities,

asstatedin this Article. The more the child himself or herself knows, has experienced and

understands, the more the parent, legal guardian or other persons legally responsible for the

child have to transform direction and guidance into reminders and advice and latertoan

exchange on an equal footing.”

51 Lansdown, note 23.

52Ibid., at 240 and also General Comment No. 12, note 12, at 21: “Article 12 imposes no age

limit on the right of the child to express his or her own views, and discourages State parties

from introducing age limits either inlawor in practice which would restrict the child’s right to

be heard inall matters affecting her or him.”

2016]The Right of the Child to be Heard

159

matteronthechildmustalsobetakenintoconsideration.”53Thereisno

furtherguidanceonthismatter,whichisproblematicastheword

“reasonable”isopentointerpretation.Thiscouldreferto a dutytoexpress

one’sviewin a timelymanner,whichmaynotbea reasonableconsideration

whendealingwithyoungchildrenwhomayrequireextraassistanceto

communicatetheirwishes.54 Thereforeitcouldbesaidthatthe“guidelines”

providedbyArticle12(1)CRCarenotreallyguidelinesatall;the

vindicationoftherightsprovidedbytheArticleingeneralisdependent

uponthesubjectivevaluejudgmentsofdecision-makers.

B.Article 12(2)CRC

Article12(2)CRCprovides:

Forthispurposethechildshallinparticularbeprovidedthe

opportunitytobeheardinanyjudicialandadministrativeproceedings

affectingthechild,eitherdirectly,orthrough arepresentativeoran

appropriatebody,in a mannerconsistentwiththeproceduralrulesof

nationallaw.

i.!Direct and Indirect Participation

ThemostnotableaspectofArticle12CRCisthatitaffordschildrenan

opportunitytodeterminetheextenttowhichtheywillparticipatein

decisionsaffectingthem.Tothisend,participationisfacilitatedintwo

forms:directlyandindirectly.Thisrightisaffordedtoallchildren

regardlessofage,andthusevenveryyoungchildrenhavetherightto

engageindecision-makingwhichaffectsthem.55Thisoffersa certaindegree

offlexibilitytoallpartiesconcernedintheprocess,especiallyforthechild

whohastherighttodecidebothhowhewishestoengageandtheextentto

53General Comment No. 12, note 12.

54 Lansdown, note 23, at 2: “Respecting the rights of young children to be heard necessitates a

preparedness to create the space tolistento their views in ways appropriate to them – through

music, movement, dance, story-telling, role play, drawing, painting and photography, aswell

as through more conventional dialogue. This requires the provision of time, adults willing to

listen, and environments in which they feel safe and comfortable.”

55 Lothar Krappmann, “The Weight of the Child’s View (Article 12 of the Convention on the

Rights of the Child)” (2010) 18 International Journal of Children’s Rights 501, at 502.

Trinity College Law Review [Vol 19

160

whichhemayengageintheprocess.56TheCommitteehasstatedthat,where

possible,thechildshouldbeencouragedtoparticipatedirectly.However,it

notedthatthismaynotalwaysberealistic.Insuchcases,anindirectmethod

willsatisfythechild’srightspursuanttoArticle12.57Thereforethemanner

ofparticipationdoesnotaffecttheweightgiventotheviewofthechild.

Onemethodisnotdeemedtobemorepersuasivethantheother;alternative

avenuesareviewedasequaltodirectparticipation,astheymaybemore

suitablefor a childin a certaincase.

Directparticipationisthepreferredformof a child’sparticipation

becauseitprovidesanopportunityforthechildtovoiceheropinionandto

gain a deeperunderstandingaboutwhythisdecisionisnecessaryandhow

itaffectsherlife.Asdiscussed, it isrecommendedthatthechildisafforded

thechoicetodecidehislevelofengagementintheprocess.Toenablethe

childtomakethisdecision,sheshouldbeaffordedsufficientinformation

abouttheproceedings.Notwithstandingthis,inallproceedings the

decision-makermusthaveregardtowhichformofengagementwouldbein

thechild’sbestinterests.58Thiscanmeanthateventhough a childwishesto

attendthehearing,hecanberefusedifitisdeemedtobeinconflictwith

hisbestinterests.59

Directparticipationcanbeachievedeitherbyallowingthechildto

attendthediscussionorbyprivateconsultationbetweenthedecision-maker

andthechild.60Itisimportantthattheproceedingsareconductedin a child-

friendlymanner,whichinvolvescreating asafeenvironmenttofacilitate

opendiscussion.InNewZealand,forexample,judgesareencouragedto

engageinthisprocess.61AspartoftheguidelinesdraftedbyBoshier J for

interactionwithchildren,itissuggestedthatjudicialdiscussions takeplace

eitherinjudges’chambersoroutsideofthecourtroom,towhichthechild

andherlawyerwouldbeinvited.62Nosuchsystemorevenrecommendation

for a similarsystemexiststodateinIreland.Thechildshouldbeafforded

56 Lansdown, note 23, at 7: “The experience of involvement inshared activities with both adults

and peers, where there is a presumption of ability to complete a task successfully, encourages

children’s development.”

57 General Comment No. 12, note 12, at [35]–[36].

58 CRC, Article 3.

59Ibid.

60 Aisling Parkes, “The Right of the Child to be Heard inFamilyLaw Proceedings: Article 12

UNCRC” (2009) Intl Fam L 238, at 239.

61Peter Boshier, “Making Our Children Count: The New Care of Children Act 2004 – Is s.59

of the Crimes Act 1961 Still Good Law?” (speech presented toSave the Children NewZealand,

17 June 2005).

62Ibid.

2016]The Right of the Child to be Heard

161

therighttoexpresstheirwishesandthisshouldbeaccommodatedwhere

possible.63SuchisthecaseinNewZealand,butnotinIreland.

Therearesomeinstancesinwhichindirectparticipationmightbetter

suitthechild.64Whilstthisshouldnotreplacethedirectinvolvement of the

childindecision-making,itdoesserveas abeneficialalternativefor

childrenwhoareveryyoung,unabletoexpresstheirviewspersonally,or

toouncomfortableorunwillingtodirectlyinteractwiththedecision-maker.

Inthesecasesanindirectmethodshouldbemadeavailabletothechild,such

astheopportunitytowritedirectlytothedecision-makerandhavethis

affordedthesameweightasifthechildhadengageddirectly.65Decision-

makersareobligatedunderArticle12CRCtoensurethatthe weight

affordedtoa child’sviewsdoesnotvaryregardlessofwhetherthechild

participatedinpersonorotherwise,asneithertheCRCnortheCommittee

stipulatesthatdirectparticipationismorepersuasivethanthealternative.

Forchildrenwhohavedecidednottoengageintheproceedingsitis

importantthattheyaregiventheopportunitytoindirectlyexpresstheir

views.66Forexample,thechildmightfeeluncomfortablespeakingabouthis

experiences,buthemaybewillingtocommunicatethemin writing.

Anotheroptionavailabletofacilitateindirectparticipationwouldbeto

introducecaresupportofficerstoassistthechildduringtheproceedings.67

Asa result,childrenmayfeelmorecomfortableinspeakingtosomeone

theytrust.Anexampleofsuch a personwouldbe acaresupportofficer.

Theirrolewouldbedistinctfromthatofthesocialworkerbecausetheir

responsibilitywouldbetoensurethatthechildisheardinproceedings

relatingtothem,andtorepresentthemindirectlywherethe childsowishes

orthechildistooyoungtoattendinperson. Asupportofficershould

maintainregularcontactwiththechildtoensure“consistencyand

continuity,andfollowingthroughonpromises,aspectsoftenmissingfor

childrenandyoungpeopleincare. Acommoncomplaintisthatworkers

changetoooften,arerarelyavailablewhentheycall,areslowtoreturncalls,

anddonotfollowthroughonrequestsandpromises.”68JudyCashmorehas

arguedthatallchildrenincareshouldbeappointed a caresupportofficeras

63Ibid.

64 Parkes, note 60.

65 General Comment No. 12, note 12.

66 CRC, Article 12(2).

67See Margaret Bell, Promoting Children’s Rights in Social Work and Social Care (Jessica

Kingsley Publishers, 2011), at 41. Bell advocated for the use of elected representativesto

portray children’s views.

68 Judy Cashmore, “Promoting the participation of children and young people in care” (2002)

26 Child Abuse & Neglect 837, at 843.

Trinity College Law Review [Vol 19

162

partofbuilding a rightsframework,asitisimportantthatthereis a pointof

contactforeverychildwhensheisincare.69

Overall,Article12(2)CRCisfundamentalasitallowsthechildto

coordinatehisinvolvement.Wherefeasible,thechosenformof

participationshouldbefacilitatedbythedecision-maker.Itisimperative

that arangeofcross-sectorservicesbedevelopedandmadeavailableto

childrenwishingtoexpresstheirviewsinjudicialandadministrative

proceedings.TosuccessfullyrealisetheobjectiveoftheCRC,itisimportant

thatstatescomplywiththeirobligationsandactivelyworktofurther

enhancechildren’srights.70Inordertoachieveparticipationinpracticeitis

importantthatthosewhoworkwithchildrenareadequatelytrainedandthat

theyunderstandthevalueoflisteningtochildren.Thismayinvolvethe

allocationofsufficientresourcestoprovidefortheimplementationof

Article12CRCinpractice.

ii.!Implementing Article 12 CRC in Foster Care Decision-

Making

Withthewords“shallassure”inArticle12(1)CRC,theCRCimposes a

powerfulobligationonstatestoensurethatthechild’srighttoself-

expressionisupheld.Thiswordingleavesnoopportunityforstatesto

exercisediscretioninthemanner inwhichthisrightisimplemented.71The

Committeeprovidesthatallstatesshouldimplementlegislationinorderto

giveeffecttoArticle12CRCinfamilylawproceedings.72AislingParkes

hasobservedthatitisclearthatwhileimplementinglegislation isthe

startingpoint,thisdoesnotnecessarilyensurecompliancewiththechild’s

righttoparticipateinpractice.73Thereforeitisnecessarytoexaminethe

obligationsimposedonstates,asArticle12CRCimposes a clearobligation

toassurethisright.74

Firstandforemost,itisfundamentalthatthelegislationenactedto

giveeffecttoArticle12CRCrespectsthechild’srighttoengageatallstages

oftheprocess.75Itshouldalsoestablishthestandardsofbestpracticefor

facilitatingthechildindecision-makingproceedings.TheCommitteehas

69Ibid.

70 General Comment No. 12, note 12.

71 General Comment No. 12, note 12, at 6.

72Ibid.

73 Parkes, note 60, at 239.

74 CRC, Article 12(1).

75 General Comment No. 12, note 12, at [6].

2016]The Right of the Child to be Heard

163

affirmedthatmandatorytrainingforthosewhoworkwithchildrenmustbe

introducedas“adultsneedpreparation,skillsandsupporttofacilitate

children’sparticipationeffectively,toprovidethem,forexample,withskills

inlistening,workingjointlywithchildrenandengagingchildreneffectively

inaccordancewiththeirevolvingcapacities.”76Thisisimportanttoensure

theeffectiverealisationofArticle12CRCastheadultswhoworkwith

children“needtobecommittedtotheprincipleoflisteningtochildren.”77

Suchtrainingwouldprovideinstructiononhowbesttocommunicatewith

childrenofallages,thebenefitsofinvolvingchildrenindecisionsaffecting

them,andalsothevariousdifferentwaysinwhichtheycanfacilitate

participationtosuitallchildren.Theseprofessionalsshouldbeinstructed

onhowtobestcommunicatewithchildren,whyitisimportanttolistento

children’sviewsinmatters relatingtothem,andthedifferentways in which

theycanencouragechildrentoengage,eitherdirectlyorindirectly.78

Trainingcouldimprovetherelationshipbetweenthechildandthedecision-

maker,whichinturnwouldincreasetheoverallqualityoftheengagement

andthechild’sparticipation.79

Thelegislationshouldalsoestablishanindependentcomplaints

mechanismbywhichchildrenwouldbeentitledtoaccessincaseswhere

theyhavenotbeenaffordedtheopportunitytoparticipateinanymanner,in

caseswherechildren’sviewsweredisregarded,orincaseswherechildren

weremistreatedordisrespectedduringtheprocess.Forallcountries,itis

importantthatchildrenhaveaccesstosuch aservicetoensurethattheir

rightsarebeingaffordedcorrectlyandwithoutdiscrimination.80

Furthermore,itissubmittedthatitisalsointhebestinterestsofchildrenfor

such a servicetobeestablished,andthisisanimportantconsiderationfor

statesinlightoftheirobligationspursuanttoArticle 3CRC.81By

implementinganeffectiveandthoroughlegislativeAct,Irelandwould

ensurethatArticle12CRCisrealisedintheory.However,thechallengeis

howthiscanbeputintopracticetoensureconsistency,whichinturn

satisfiestheprincipleofnon-discrimination.82

76Ibid.,at para. 134(G).

77 Lansdown, note 23, at 31.

78Ibid.

79Ibid., at7: “There isa growing body of evidence indicating that where children are given

opportunitiesto participate, they acquire greater levels of competence, which in turn enhances

the quality of participation.”

80 CRC, Article 2.

81Ibid., Article 3.

82Ibid., Article 2.

Trinity College Law Review [Vol 19

164

III. The Status of the Rights of Foster Childrenunderthe

CRCinIrish Law

Fora longtime,childrenoutsideofthenexusofthetraditionalmarital

familyweredisadvantagedinIreland.PriortotheenactmentofArticle42A

oftheIrishConstitution,theIrishConstitutionwasdescribedasbeing

virtuallysilentonchildren’srights.Therightsofthechildwerelargely

confinedtothecontextofthemaritalfamilyunit.83Thisposed a numberof

challengesforchildrenwithoutparentalcare.Article41affordedthemarital

familyunit“inalienable”and“imprescriptible”rights,whichhasbeen

interpretedasgiving a “highervaluetotherightsofparentsthantotherights

ofchildren.”84Bysituatingtherightsofthechildwithinthecontextofthe

maritalfamily,theConstitutionoverlooked a broadercategoryofchildren

whoarewithoutparentalcare.Duetotheinalienableprotectionaffordedto

maritalfamilies,removingchildrenfromthecareoftheirparentshasbeen

subjecttoanarguablyonerousburdenofproof.85Accordingly,placing a

childintostatecareinvolvedprovingthattheparentshadfailedeither

“physicallyormorally”toprovideforthechild.Thisbecamechallenging

astherewasnoprovisionforthechild’sneeds,wellbeing,orvoicetobe

takenintoconsideration.

UnderArticle42A,whichwasintroducedin2012,theStateisentitled

tointervenewheretherehasbeen afailureofparentaldutysuchthatthe

safetyorwelfareofthechildislikelytobeprejudiciallyaffected.86The

Oireachtasisnowobligedtointroducelegislationfollowingthe

amendment,whichwillnecessitateconsultationwithchildrenwhoare

capableofformingtheirownviewsincasesconcerningproposed

83 Barnardos, The Case for Constitutional Change

(visited 17

September 2014).

84 Kilkenny Incest Investigation Team,Report of the Kilkenny Investigation Team (Stationery

Office, 1993), at 56.

85 Article 42.5° imposed an obligation on the State,asguardian of the common good, to

intervene insuch casesto supply the place of parents “but always withdue regard for the natural

and imprescriptible rights of the child.” Seealso North Western Health Board v HW [2001]

IESC 90; N v HSE [2006] 4 IR 374.

86 Article 42A.4.1°: “Provision shall be made by law that inthe resolution of all proceedings –

(i) brought by the State,as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the

safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or (ii) concerning the

adoption, guardianship or custody of, or accessto, any child, the best interests of the child shall

be the paramount consideration.”

2016]The Right of the Child to be Heard

165

interventionunderArticle42A.87Inthisway,thechild’srighttoparticipate

inmattersaffectingherwillfinallyberecognisedinIrishlaw,albeitin a

somewhatlimitedmanner.Therequirementtointroducesubsequent

legislationmeansthatthechilddoesnotpossessanexpressconstitutional

righttoparticipate,asthisrightwillmerelybeprotectedbywayof

legislation.However,EmilyLogan,Ireland’sfirstOmbudsmanfor

Children,commented“that amoremaximalapproachtoincorporation

couldhavebeenadoptedinthe31stAmendment.”88

A.Assessing Ireland’s Compliance with Article 12 CRC

Theadministrativebodieschargedwiththepromotionofchildwelfarein

Irelandaretheregionalhealthboards.89Section 3 ofthe1991Actimposes

a statutorydutyuponhealthboardstoidentifychildrenwhoarenot

receivingadequatecareand “insofarasispracticable,givedue

consideration,havingregardtohisageandunderstanding,tothewishesof

thechild.”However,thereisnofurtherguidanceonthisrightastohowit

canbeimplementedinpractice.90Inmoreseriouscases,both theDistrict

CourtsandtheCircuitCourts(onappeal)havejurisdictiontohearand

determinecareplacementproceedings.91

The1991Actisthemostrelevantpieceoflegislationforfostercare

proceedings.Itwasseenas a welcomeimprovementinIrishlawasit

conferredpowersonthehealthboardstoprovidecareandsupportservices

forchildreninneed,thusovercomingthenon-interventionistapproach

adoptedbythecourts.92Thesignificanceofthisoverhaulis a representation

87 Edel Quinn, Next Steps for Children’s Rights in Ireland

of-ireland/quinn-next-steps/#more-16844/> (visited 14 February 2016). “The new article

employs a novel, though not unprecedented, approach toa number of the rights provided

therein. Some provisions are not constitutional directives but enabling provisions, placing a

mandatory obligation on the Stateto legislate on aspects of adoption (Articles 42A.2.2 and

42A.3), best interests of the child (Article 42A.4.1) and hearing the views of the child (Article

42A.4.2). The wording adopts the imperative ‘shall’ in terms of provision being made inlaw

for these rights.”

88Emily Logan, The Children's Referendum: Viewfrom the Ombudsman for Children

(visited 2

September 2014).

89Child Care Act,1991, s.3(1).

90 Child Care Act 1991, ss.3(2)(b)(i)-(ii).

91 Child Care Act 1991, s.28(1).

92See Nóirín Hayes, Children’s Rights - Whose right? A Review of Child Policy Development

in Ireland(The Policy Institute, Trinity College, 2002), at47. Seealso Robbie Gilligan,

“Family Support and Child Welfare” (1995) in Harry Ferguson and Pat Kenny eds., On Behalf

of the Child (A and A Farmar, 1995).

Trinity College Law Review [Vol 19

166

of a movementtowardsrecognisingthechildasa separateentity,withrights

distinctfromhisfamilyunit.93Significantly,the1991Actallowsboththe

courtsandhealthboardstoactintheinterestsofthechild’swelfare,whilst

incorporatingchecksandbalancesintermsof therightsofthenatural

parents.94Italsoprovidesfortherightofthechildtoparticipateincourt

proceedingsrelatingtohercare,butin a morelimitedmannerthanArticle

12CRC.Section24ofthe1991Actprovidesthat:

Inanyproceedingsbefore a courtunderthisActinrelationtothecare

andprotectionof achild,thecourt,havingregardtotherightsand

dutiesofparents,whetherundertheConstitutionorotherwise,shall–

(a)!Regard the welfare of thechild as the first and paramount

consideration, and

(b)!In so far as practicable, give due consideration, having regard to

his age and understanding, to the wishes of the child.95

Forchildreninneedofcareandprotection,thelawprovidesfor a rangeof

placementstosuittheirbestinterests includingshort-termcare,long-term

care,emergencycare,andrespitecare.Section 4ofthe1991Actallows

healthboardstoplace achildinfostercaresubjecttoa voluntaryorder,

whichnecessitatesthattheparentsagreewiththeplacement.96Throughout

Europe,thevastmajorityofcareplacementshavebeenorderedby

administrativebodieswithoutcourtinvolvement.97However,incaseswhere

thereis aseriousandimmediaterisktothechild’swellbeingandsafety,

93Convention on the Rights of the Child, ‘Initial reports of States parties due in 1994: Ireland’

(CRC/C/11/Add.12, 1996): “The Actrepresents a movement awayfrom the concept of children

as parental property toan understanding of the child as a person who has rights by virtue of

being a child.”

94Ibid.

95Seealso Child Care Act 1991, s.30(2): “A court will be ina position tofacilitate a child's

request if the child wishes to attend at a court hearing in proceedings in his or her case.

However, this section also makes provision for the court to refuse such a request ifit considers

that having regarded tothe age of the child and the nature of the proceedings it would not be

in the best interests of the child.”

96 Child Care Act 1991, s.4: “Where it appears to a health board that a child […] requires care

or protection that he is unlikely to receive unless he is taken into its care, it shall be the duty of

the health board to take him into its care under this section.”

97Kim Holt and Nancy Kelly, “Administrative Decision Making in Child-Care Work:

Exploring Issues of Judgment and Decision Making in the Context of Human Rights, and Its

Relevance for Social Workers and Managers” (2014) 44 British Journal of Social Work 1011,

at 1017.

2016]The Right of the Child to be Heard

167

s.16ofthe1991Actplaces adutyonhealthboardstoinitiatecourt

proceedingsfor acareordertobemade.Thereisnoreferenceinthis

provisionforthechildtobeheardduringproceedings.98

Section39ofthe1991ActobligedtheMinisterforHealthand

Childrentomakeregulationspertainingtofostercare,whichresultedinthe

draftingoftheChildCare(PlacementofChildreninFosterCare)

Regulations1995(hereinaftertheRegulations).Accordingtoreg.4,a health

boardshall,insofaraspracticable,paydueconsiderationtothewishesof

thechild,havingregardtotheirageandlevelofunderstanding.The

NationalStandardsforFosterCare2003(“theStandards”)alsoprovide a

goodsourceofguidancefortheimplementationofqualitycareandthese

shouldbeconsideredalongwiththe1991ActandtheRegulations.99The

Standardshavealsoestablished ameansbywhichitcanbeensuredthat

childrenandyoungpeopleareheardandinvolvedindecisionsrelatingto

theircare.UrsulaKilkellyhasrecognisedthattheseStandardsgo aboveand

beyondtheexistinglegislationintermsofrecognisingtherightsofchildren

incare.100ShenotesthattheyareconsistentwithboththeCRCandthe2009

GuidelinesforAlternativeCareandthustheyareaninfluentialsourcefor

fostercareregulationinthiscountry.101Thefailuretorecognisethese

Standardson astatutorylevel,however,meansthatinrealitytheylack

substantiallegalauthority.102Assuch,intheeventthat a childhas a

complaintregardinga breachof aStandard,there is noeffectiveremedy

availabletohim.103

B.The Placement Process

Toensure a child-friendlyprocessforchildparticipants,itisimportantto

createa safeenvironmenttominimisetherisksinvolvedinthedecision-

makingprocess.Thereis,however,nosuch requirementwithinthe1991

98 Child Care Act 1991, s.16: “Where it appears to a health board with respect to a child who

resides or is found inits area that he requires care or protection which he is unlikely to receive

unless a court makes a care order or a supervision order inrespect of him, it shall be the duty

of the health board to make application for a care order or a supervision order, asit thinks fit.”

99 Department of Healthand Children, National Standards For Foster Care (The Stationary

Office, 2003).

100 Ursula Kilkelly, Children’s Rights in Ireland: Law, Policy and Practice (Tottel Publishing,

2008), at 346.

101Ibid.

102Ibid.

103Ibid.

Trinity College Law Review [Vol 19

168

Act.104Whiles.29(4)ofthe1991ActstipulatesthatHighCourtproceedings

shouldbeasinformalaspracticable,themajorityofchildcareproceedings

areheldintheDistrictandCircuitCourts.105Thelackof a statutory

provisionwithinthe1991Acttoensurecourtproceedingsareconductedin

a safeenvironmentisproblematicasitisacknowledgedthattraditional

courtroomscanbe a stressfulenvironmentforchildren.106Thisisnaturally

duetotheadversarialnatureofcourt hearings,makingthemparticularly

unsuitableforyoungchildren.107Furthermore,themajorityofcourtrooms

arenotphysicallydesignedtoaccommodatechildrenandthiscouldinstil

feelingsofintimidationandanxietyinthem.108

Creatinganenvironment to facilitatechildrentoexpresstheirviews

requiresthattheentireprocessissafeandsecureespeciallyduringthe

placementhearing.109Kilkellydeemsthistobeanimportantconsideration

forchildreninalternativecare,andimportantfromtheperspectiveof

Article12CRC,becausesuchchildrenmayhavealreadyexperienced

violationsoftheirrightssuchasa lackofparentalcare,neglect,orabuse.110

Section25ofthe1991Actaffordschildren a directrightofparticipationin

caseswherethechildbecomes apartytotheproceedings.Forexample,

unders.25(2)thecourtmayappointlegalrepresentationforthechild.111

However,itisacknowledgedthatthisonlyoccursin a limitednumber

ofcases.112Insuchcaseswhereitwouldnotbepossibletofacilitatethe

childas a participant,Article12(2)CRCprovidesthatindirectparticipation

shouldbeencouraged.113InIreland,thechildhas arighttoindirect

representationincourt,butthisisatthecourt’sdiscretionpursuanttos.26

ofthe1991Act. A GuardianAdLitem(“GAL”)maybeappointedinsuch

circumstanceswhereitisinthebestinterestsofthechildorintheinterest

ofjustice,asdetailedwithins.26(1).114However,theprimarypurposeof a

GAListoinformthecourtofthechild’sbest interests.Thereisno

104 General Comment No. 12, note 12, at [134].

105 Child Care Act 1991, s.29(4).

106 Ursula Kilkelly, “Children’s Rights and Youth Courts: The Irish Experience” (2008) 8(1)

Youth Justice 39.

107Ibid.

108Ibid.

109 Lundy, note 35.

110 Ursula Kilkelly, Barriers to the Realisation of Children's Rights inIreland (Commissioned

by the Ombudsman for Children, 2007).

111 Child Care Act 1991, s.25(2).Seealso Geoffrey Shannon, “Giving a Voice to the Child –

The Irish Experience” (2000) 14 Irish Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 131, 138.

112 Shannon, note 111, at 138.

113General Comment No. 12, note 12, [35]–[36].

114Child Care Act 1991, s.26(1).

2016]The Right of the Child to be Heard

169

obligationimposedontheGALtoconveytheviewsofthechild,asrequired

byArticle12CRC.115Therefore,theappointmentof aGALdoesnot

adequatelysatisfytheroleofanindirectrepresentativeandthusthechild’s

righttoindirectparticipationisnotsufficientlyvindicated. A caresupport

officer,forexample,wouldbebettersuitedtothispurpose,astheirprimary

responsibilitywouldbetoactas a representativeofthechild,which

necessitatescommunicatingthechild’sinterestsandviewswherethechild

cannotdosoherself.

Forallchildrenenteringcare,s.11oftheChildCare(Placementof

ChildreninFosterCare)Regulations1995[hereinafterthe1995

Regulations]providesthatthechildhas arighttoreceive a careplan

stipulatingtheaimsandobjectivesoftheplacement,thesupporttobe

providedtothechild,thearrangementsforaccess,and areviewofthe

placement.116TheCommitteeacknowledgesthattheuseofthiscareplanis

toensurethattheprovisionandpermanencyofcareisinthechild’sbest

interests.117Reportshavefoundthatnoteverychildlivinginfostercareis

giventhiscareplan,however.Eventhosewhodoreceive a careplan

describethedocumentsasbeingbothvagueandunclear.118Whilstthe 1995

Regulationsacknowledgeconsultationwithchildrenduringcareplanning,

thisisnotanexpressrightass.11(3)requiresconsultationbetweensocial

workersandchildren“insofaraspracticable.”119Incontrast,theStandards

makeprovisionforchildparticipationduringthepreparationof a careplan.

AstheseStandardshavenotbeengivenstatutoryeffect,intheeventthat a

Standardisbreached,thechildhasnorecourseavailabletohim.

Asparticipationis a process,thechildinquestionshould alsobegiven

theopportunitytoparticipatenotjustinproceedingsregardingherinitial

placement,butalsoincarereviewhearings.120Wherethechildisnotgiven

theopportunitytoparticipate,thisis a missedopportunityforthedecision-

makersandfostercarersintermsofimprovingthechild’scare.Section

18(4)ofthe1991Actrelatestothisprocessandstatesthatthehealthboard

mustinformthefosterparentsand,insofarasispracticable,thechild.The

115Ibid. This is attributable tothe manner inwhich the Irish courts have interpreted the best

interest’s principle. This principle has been saidto “underlie the provision of child-care

services in Ireland.”

116 Child Care (Placement of Children in Foster Care) Regulations (S.I. No. 260/1995), s.11(1).

117 The Guidelines, note 15, at [61]-[62].

118Rosemary Horgan, “Foster Care in Ireland” (2002) 3(1) Irish Journal of Applied Social

Studies 30, at38: “Even where there are Care Plans they are usually light on the specifics in

that regard.”

119 Child Care (Placement of Children in Foster Care) Regulations (S.I. No. 260/1995), s.11(3).

120 General Comment No. 12, note 12.

Trinity College Law Review [Vol 19

170

childcanbeaffordedanopportunitytobeheardinpersonorotherwiseto

beconsultedinrelationtothereview.121Furthermore,the1991Act

stipulatesthatthehealthboardmusthaveregardtoanyviewsorinformation

expressedbythechildinrelationtothereview.122Itissubmittedthat this

provisionshouldbereconsideredasthephrase“insofaraspracticable”

servesasanimpedimenttotherealisationofArticle12CRC.123Oncethe

finaldecisionhasbeenmade,s.18(6)ofthe1991Actobligesthehealth

boardtoinformthechild,wherepracticable,aboutthedecision.124The

conformityofthispracticewithArticle12CRCisquestionable.

C.The Role of Decision-Makers in Facilitating the Child as a Participant

Article12CRCrequiresdecision-makerstoafforddueweighttothechild’s

viewsaccordingtohisageandlevelofmaturity.125Whilethishasbeen

transposedintoIrishlawintheformofs.24ofthe1991Act,thereisno

guidanceastohowdecision-makersshallcomplywiththisright.Thisraises

concernswithregardtotheeffectivenessofchildparticipationinpractice.

Section24ofthe1991Actstatesthatinallproceedingsthecourtshallgive

dueconsiderationtotheviewsofthechild,havingregardtoherageand

understanding.126Asopposedtotheuseoftheword“maturity”,which

appearsinArticle12CRC,the1991Actreferstothechild’s“levelof

understanding.”127Thisisparadoxical,astounderstandsomethingimplies

thatonehasknowledgeonthesubjectmatter,butthereisnorequirementin

Irishlawforthechildtobeinformedregardingtheplacement.128Itisunclear

astohow a childcanpossess asufficientlevelofunderstandingwhenhe

hasnorighttoreceiveage-appropriateinformationtoassisthimin

participating.129Thelawthereforeactsasaninhibitorasitpreventsthe

preconditionsnecessaryforthechildtounderstandtheplacementprocess.

121 Child Care Act 1991, s.18(4).

122Ibid, s.18(5).

123Kilkelly,note110,at346:“‘insofaraspracticable’is a weakstandardinsofarasitprovides

for consultation with the child only inso far asitis practicable, and in this regard it falls short

of article 12.”

124 Child Care Act 1991, s.18(6).

125 CRC, Article 12(1).

126 Child Care Act 1991, s.24.

127Ibid.

128 The Guidelines, note 15, at [134a].

129National Standards 2003, note 99, at [7.10]: “A written account of the decisions of the

review is given to the child, the parents, where appropriate and the foster carers and a copy is

retained on the case file.”

2016]The Right of the Child to be Heard

171

InassessingIreland’scompliancewithArticle12CRC,itisalso

necessarytoexaminethecurrentlevelsoftrainingrequiredforthosewho

workwithchildrenincare,whichincludesdecision-makers(including

membersofthejudiciary),socialworkers,andfostercarers.Fromthe

perspectiveofensuringthattheprocessisdesignedin a child-friendly

manner,itisclearthatthereitisimperativetoensurethatadequatetraining

programmesareprovidedforallpersonsworkingwithchildren.Such

trainingwouldprovideinstructiononthedifferentwaysinwhichchildren

canexpresstheirviewsandprovideguidanceconcerningthewaysinwhich

childrencanbeencouragedandfacilitatedinordertoachievemeaningful

participationontheirpart.TheStandardsrequirehealthboardsto“ensure

thattrainingisorganisedinsuch awayastoencourageandfacilitate

attendancebyfostercarers.”130However,thereisnosuch stipulationto

encourageandfacilitatethechild’sattendance.

In2007TheFamilyLawReportingPilotProjectfoundthatIrish

judgesareconcernedwiththeirownlackofeducationandtrainingin

dealingwithchildreninthecourtroom.131Itwasnoted thatthereisno

adequateframeworkforfacilitatingtheviewsofthechildinlinewith

Article12CRC,whichhasledtoinconsistencyinhowjudgeshave

interpretedthisright.132Thefollowingpassageillustratesthisinconsistency:

Somewillhearthechildrenintheirchambersconcerningtheir

preferencesespeciallyifchildrenareolder.Othersfeelitmaybe

inappropriatetohear a child,consideringthatthechildcouldbe

manipulatedbyoneorotherparentandfearingthiswillinvolve

childrenintheirparents’disputestherebyfurtherdamagingfamilial

relationships.Theyprefertoaskanexperttoexamine a child … and

reportbacktothecourtonwhatislikelytobethebestoutcomefor

thechild.133

Whiletheprovisionofmandatorytrainingisrecommendedbythe

Committee,itdoesposeproblemsforIrelandasmembersofthejudiciary

whowereappointedpriorto1995areundernoobligationtoundergo

training.134Nevertheless,forothermembersofthejudiciaryandforthe

130Ibid.,at [16.4].

131Carol Coulter, Family Law Reporting Pilot Project(Report to the Board of the Courts

Service, 2007).

132Ibid., at 50.

133Ibid.,at 51.

134 Courts and Court Officers Act 1995, s.19.

Trinity College Law Review [Vol 19

172

widercategoryoflawyersworkinginthefamilycourtsitisimportantthat

obligatorytrainingismadeavailable.135TheLawReformCommission

made a similarrecommendationin1996initsreportonthefamilycourts.136

Tenyearslater,thisrecommendationhasstillnotbeenheeded.Social

workersshouldalsobetrainedinchildren’srightsandtherightscontained

intheCRCsoastoensureIreland’scompliance.IntheCodeofProfessional

ConductandEthicsissuedbytheIrishSocialWorkersRegistrationBoard,

thedutieslistedforsocialworkerstocomplywithincludeupholdinghuman

rightsinpractice,respectingtherightsanddignityofpersons,andkeeping

professionalskillsandknowledgeuptodate.137Theserequirementscan

onlybesatisfiedifsocialworkersareaffordedtraining onhumanrights,

specificallychildren’srightsprotectedintheCRC.Inparticular,inthe

pursuitofupholdinghumanrightsitstatedthatsocialworkersmustpromote

therighttomeaningfulparticipation.138Onthisbasis,itisimportantthat,

during thecourseoftheirwork,socialworkersseektoemploythesehuman

rightsstandardsinordertocomplywiththeirdutieslistedintheirCodeof

Conductandtocreate a child-friendlyprocesswhichencourageschild

participation.

Conclusion

Atpresent, andashasbeenshown,theIrishfostercaresystemisinadequate

anddoesnotsatisfytherightsofchildrenlivinginitscare.139In2011,a

135Ibid. Section 48 is of note as this provision allows the Minister for Justice to provide funds

for the training and education of judges. According toMr Justice Michael White (The High

Court), training isbeing developed for members of the judiciary in accommodating children:

MrJustice Michael White, Challenges inFamilyLawProceedings

%20Michael%20White%20_%20Challenges%20in%20Family%20Law%20Practice%20Bac

kground%20Paper.pdf> (visited 8 September 2014).

136Law Reform Commission, Report on Family Courts (The Law Reform Commission, 1996).

137Irish Social Workers Registration Board, Code of Professional Conduct and Ethics for

Social Workers

(visited 6 September 2014).

138Ibid., at 5.

139 This is highlighted by a number of recent findings which illustrate the inherent problems

within the system. Of particular concern is the number of children being placed abroad due to

a lack of specialised care places in this country, withanestimatedten children in special care

placements in Northampton, Scotland and Nebraska (Carl O’Brien, “Children inStateCare

Based Abroad Due toa Lack of Placesat Home” The Irish Times, 2013). This practice needs

to be addressed immediately especially inlight of the Committee’s Report on Germany’s

compliance with the CRC (Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations

Germany (2014) CRC/C/DEU/CO/3-4

2016]The Right of the Child to be Heard

173

reportoftheDepartmentofChildrenandYouthAffairsfoundthatthe

currentmechanismsinplaceforfacilitatingchildrenduringdecision-

makingprocesseswereinadequateandinneedofreform.140Specifically,it

concludedthatthenotionofexpressingone’sviewswas“alien”tomanyof

thechildrensurveyed.141Severalrecommendationswereputforwardbythe

children in ordertoimprovetheirtimeinfostercare.142Firstlythey

suggestedthattheIrishcareplanningsystemshouldbere-examined;fewer

adultsshouldbeinattendanceatreviewmeetings,andyoungpeopleshould

have a sayinwhoattendstheirreviews.143Thesecondsuggestion,inrelation

tosocialworkers,was“socialworkpracticeandthewayinwhichsocial

workersinteractwithyoungpeopleincareneedstobereviewedand

improved.”144Interestingly,itwasalsosuggestedthatthecurrenttraining

forsocial workersneedstobereviewedandthatyoungpeopleshouldplay

a roleinanynewtrainingprovided.145Thefinalsuggestionsubmittedinthis

reportwasthatyoungpeopleshouldplay a roleinassessingthesuitability

oftheirownsocialworker.146

InrevisingthecurrentframeworktoensurecompliancewiththeCRC,

itisimportanttoconsiderthechangeswhichcantakeeffectbothinpolicy

andinpractice.ItissubmittedthatArticle42AoftheConstitutionaloneis

notenoughtomeettheneedsofchildreninpractice;legislationmustbe

enactedtogiveeffecttothisprovisionandtoensurethatallchildrenhave

theexpressrighttoparticipateinallproceedingsrelatingtothem.

Mandatorytrainingshouldalsobeintroducedforalladultsinvolvedina

fosterchild’slifeaspartoffulfillingtheobjectiveofArticle42A.An

effectivetrainingprogrammewouldprovideprofessionalswithan

understandingofArticle12CRC,howtolistentochildrenofallagesand

howtoaffordviewsdueweight.

In2014,TheChildandFamilyAgencywasestablishedtoreform

childprotectioninIrelandandoverseetheprovisionoffostercare.147The

kinderrechteausschuss-englisch,property=pdf,bereich=bmfsfj,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf>

(visited 12 August 2014). The placement of German children into foreign care was heavily

criticised in this report.

140Department of Children and Youth Affairs, Listento our voices! Hearing Children and

Young People Living in the Care of the State (Government Publications, 2011), at 2.

141Ibid.

142Ibid.,at 86.

143Ibid.

144Ibid.

145Ibid.

146Ibid.

147 Child and Family Agency Act, 2013.

Trinity College Law Review [Vol 19

174

Agencyproposestointroduce a Strategyforchildparticipationwhichwould

ensure“thateverytime a decisionistaken,whichdirectlyaffects a childor

youngpersonorchildrenandyoungpeoplecollectively,theirviewsare

takenintoconsiderationinthedecisionmakingprocess.”148Thiswouldbe

a welcomeimprovementforchildren’srightsinIrelandanditishopedthat

theguidetoeffectiveparticipationwouldensureconsistencyand

compliancewithArticle12CRCforchildrenincare.FortheAgencyto

operatesuccessfully,however,Stateresourcesandfundingisrequiredand

thecurrentshortageofsocialworkersworking in theHSEmustbe

addressed.149

Accordingtorecentfigures,therearemorethan9,000casesof

childrenatriskwaitingfor a socialworkertobeappointedtotheircase.150

TheheadofservicesoftheIrishFosterCareAssociationcommented

“unlesstheChild andFamilyAgencyisfullyresourcedtoensurethatall

childprotectionandfosteringteamshavethefullcomplementofsocial

workersandsupportstaffrequired,thesechildrenandyoungpeoplewillnot

receivetheserviceswhichtheyareentitledto.”151Indiscussingchildren’s

rightsincare,itisacknowledgedthattherearebarrierswhichmustbe

overcomeinordertocomplywithIreland’sobligationsimposedbythe

CRC.152Theimportanceofovercomingsuchobstaclesisvalidatedbythe

provenvalueoflisteningtochildrenandthelong-lastingbenefitsthat

participationcanhaveforchildrenincare.Article12CRCgiveschildren

anexpressrighttoengageinallmattersrelatingtothemandtohavethese

viewsaffordeddueweightbytheadultdecision-maker.153Theverynature

ofparticipationrefersto a cooperativeprocesswhichshouldbeconstructive

andinteractiveinordertoimprovethelivesofallchildren.Intheory,

meaningfulparticipationinvolvesencouragingchildrentoparticipatefrom

beginningtoend;inpracticethismeansthatfromthemomentthedecision

ismadetotake a childintocare,thechildshouldbeplacedattheheartof

theprocessandthisrequireshertoengagefullyinalldecision-making

affectingher.

148The Child and FamilyAgency, Participation Resources

community-support/resources-to-support-the-participation-of-children-and-young-people-in-

deci/> (visited 8 September 2014).

149 Cashmore, note 68, at 843.

150Carl O’Brien, “Thousands of children at risk awaitsocial workers” The Irish Times, 5

September 2014.

151Ibid.

152 Child and Family Agency, National Review Panel Reports on the Deaths of Four Children

(visited 7 August 2014).

153 CRC, Article 12(1).