OPINION:The deportation of the woman should not have resulted in the punishment of her son, writes ALAN SHATTER
FAR FROM referring to a care order granted to the Health Service Executive regarding a child removed from his Nigerian mother in Dublin in August as "State-sponsored child abuse" (as erroneously reported in The Irish Timesyesterday), it was in fact the conduct of the Government and Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern that I described as "State-sponsored child abuse, 21st-century style".
A word of explanation.
On August 16th, the Nigerian mother of this child was arrested in Dublin airport for evading a deportation order. She was deported on September 1st. Her four-year-old son was temporarily placed in care on August 16th, and the HSE properly made an application to the children’s court under the Childcare Act 1991 for directions on the child’s welfare.
I understand that the child was properly cared for, and prior to the airport incident was never apart from his mother. I also understand that the children’s court, required to make decisions protecting children’s welfare, found he should not be deported.
Despite this, Ahern went ahead with the mother’s deportation, and since August the child has been cared for in four different temporary fosterage arrangements, and at least three different HSE social workers have been involved with the child.
There is little doubt the mother was in the State illegally, and had since 2005 evaded deportation. This was unacceptable, but was not the child’s fault, and he should not be punished for it.
Ahern justified the unacceptable treatment of this child on the basis that he is not an Irish citizen, and that a majority in 2004 voted for a constitutional change to ensure children born to foreign nationals residing for a short time in the State would not automatically acquire citizenship.
I do not believe that those who voted in favour of constitutional change had anticipated that this State would remove a child from his mother in Dublin airport and simply deport the mother without regard to consequences for the child. Once the future care and welfare of this child became an issue that required a decision of the children’s court, deportation of the mother should have been postponed to facilitate all issues relating to this child’s welfare being given proper consideration.
There are specific questions Ahern should answer. These are:
1:In requiring the deportation of the mother in September, why did he and those involved in his department entirely ignore the Children First Child Protection Guidelines of 1999?
2:Prior to the deportation, did he consult the Minister for Children on the appropriate action to take in circumstances in which the child was in the care of the HSE and the child's care proceedings were before the children's court?
3:Did the Minister consult the HSE and receive a report from the senior social worker engaged by the HSE in dealing with the child's circumstances prior to the mother's deportation?
4:What consideration, if any, did the Minister give to the likely impact on the child's long-term emotional development and welfare in being removed from his mother and placed in the care of a series of different strangers?
5:What consideration did the Minister give to the necessity for the children's court to hear the mother's evidence to assist that court in determining what decision to make in the interests of the child's welfare?
6.On the basis of what information did the Minister conclude (as he informed the Dáil) that it was "in the best interests of the child that he be repatriated with his mother in their country of origin" without the children's court having made such a decision to date?
7:Could the Minister clarify what information he has to justify his belief as to what is in the child's best interest that differs from information available to either the children's court or the HSE?
8:What expense has the State and HSE incurred since August 16th last in payments to foster parents, in legal costs for proceedings at the children's court, and with regard to social workers and other personnel involved in this troubling case?
On July 28th Minister for Children Barry Andrews announced the Ryan commission implementation plan, which includes a promise to give statutory effect to the Children First child protection guidelines.
Within six weeks, his senior Minister, Dermot Ahern, ignored the Children First guidelines which apply to all children in the State, irrespective of citizenship. On November 26th, on the publication of the Murphy commission report, Ahern emphasised that nobody or agency should be immune from investigation where children are mistreated.There should be an immediate independent investigation into the manner in which this child has been treated by the State – and in particular by the Minster for Justice and his department.
Alan Shatter is Fine Gael spokesman on children