Interim care order granted for child living in direct provision

An interim care order was granted at the Dublin District Family Court yesterday for a young boy who had been living in direct provision provided for asylum seekers with his mother.

Judge Brendan Toale said he accepted evidence that the child, who is under five, had been left alone and unsupervised at least twice last month for considerable lengths of time, amounting to neglect.

The boy had been in the care of the Child and Family Agency on two previous occasions and also spent time in the care of another social service outside the jurisdiction.

On the last occasion in 2012, supports had been recommended for the mother, including respite and therapy, but these were not provided, the court heard. The boy was taken into care on a short-term, emergency basis last week after gardaí were contacted by a centre manager who reported his mother had left him alone.

An interim care order hearing concluded today.

Social workers and the child’s guardian said the boy had attachment issues.

The guardian said he was “warm and articulate” but also a “very vulnerable little boy”.

Because he had no secure attachment to any primary care giver, he would go with any adult and “evoked emotion in adults” as he was “so needing your attention and hugs”.

“If you said come with me, you’re going to live with me now, he’d sit into the back of your car,” she said.

Father’s role

The child’s father said he wanted to look after his son full-time. He had his son every weekend before he went into care, he said, bringing him to his home where he lived with his wife and two children.

“I love my son, I have an apartment, I have a stable life . . . My wife is in support of this,” he said.

The father also told the court he didn’t have a separate bedroom for his son. When the boy visited, his wife slept in one room with the girls and he and his son slept in another room.

The Child and Family Agency expressed concerns about allowing the father to take custody of the child.

The solicitor for the agency highlighted observations made by the social worker who found that, at access last week, the father appeared “disinterested” and at one stage appeared to be asleep.

Of three access visits, two were deemed “not positive”, the solicitor said.

The father denied this.

Making the interim care order, Judge Toale said he accepted the father’s evidence, but also accepted there were attachment issues.

He said the threshold was reached for making an interim care order. If he didn’t make one, given the father was not a legal guardian, the child would revert to the mother and was likely to be adversely affected by a repeat of the same issue.

Assessment needed

It was appropriate that an assessment be carried out of the father to examine whether it was likely if the child was placed in his custody there was a reasonable chance the placement would survive into the future, the judge said.

He adjourned the case until the end of the month.