Child to have access to parents six weeks on, six weeks off

A father who claimed access to his son in care was reduced after the boy made allegations of malpractice against his care home, has been granted fortnightly access until the new year followed by a period of no access at all by a judge at the Dublin District Family Court.

The Child and Family Agency had sought to allow access once a fortnight and wanted to reduce the father's access to once every eight weeks. The parents had sought weekly access. The boy has been in care for almost two years after incidents of physical punishment and domestic violence at home. He had no access for a time. Access resumed earlier this year, initially every two weeks, but was recently reduced.

A psychologist had produced a report, opened in court last week, tracking the boy’s behaviour on graphs which she said showed an association between access and the boy’s behavioural problems. She recommended the reduction in access.

Yesterday, after hearing evidence from both parents and from the child's court-appointed guardian, Judge Brendan Toale said the methodology of the psychologist's report was "so inexact" it was "impossible to rely on it one way or the other" and he would discount it.

He noted neither the social worker nor the guardian believed weekly access would be right for the boy, although he was conscious the boy had come to court and asked for more access.

“The only way to ascertain cause and effect is to bring about change in access,” he said. He ordered fortnightly access for two hours for six weeks followed by none at all for six weeks. The matter could then come back to court and data could be provided.

Separately, in a review of the care of a young teenager, the court heard the girl’s placement broke down after a series of violent incidents at her residential care home, including kicking, punching and pulling out the hair of staff.

One of the incidents resulted in staff barricading themselves in a room and the girl attempting to reach them with the use of a saw. The girl has so far been in seven placements over five years. She is currently in a short-term placement.

The girl’s guardian believed the agency should consider a secure care placement for her.

But the social worker said the girl had not met the threshold for secure care and because of her young age it would be wrong for her. She identified a unit that was close to a family model and was exploring whether she could be placed there. “She wants to be normal and talk about family in the way all her friends talk about family,” the social worker said.

Judge Toale noted concerns about the girl’s behaviour at a series of court hearings. He said the agency needed to “seriously examine” what was the appropriate placement for the girl and why. He adjourned the case to next month.

Judge Toale also made an interim care order for a child with disabilities after hearing his parents could not be contacted. The parents had agreed to voluntary care for the young child in a special needs residential unit. However since August, the social worker had been unable to contact them and they had stopped visiting.

The agency needed an interim care order so that it could ensure the child’s medical and other needs were met.