According to recent publications from the Child Law Project (CLP), a large number of judges express major concerns and frustration regarding the insufficiency of suitable locations for children in reliance on the care system. This lack of proper places is setting off a chain reaction that could potentially undermine the entire child care structure, warns Dr Maria Corbett, CEO of the project.
One court official voiced his worry over what he termed a “looming crisis” due to this deficiency, perplexed by the inaction of Tusla, the child and family agency, towards this “disgraceful” state of affairs. He denounced the situation as a crisis that’s largely being ignored, considering that many of the impacted children are alive “by sheer luck”. He further lamented that the confidential nature of child care proceedings has contributed to the lack of attention to this escalating problem.
The Project’s CEO detailed the consequences of the lack of sufficient spots, highlighting that it has pushed Tusla to postpone requests for child custody and resort to unsuitable and unregulated emergency placements. The reports from the CLP document a significant worry for cases where children are in danger of sexual or criminal exploitation, and the care they’re provided lacks the resources to manage the potential threats.
An obvious issue stressed in the CLP reports is the insufficiency of appropriate placement options, whether in foster homes, residential care or special care facilities. The reports also frequently highlight the struggle to supply assigned social workers and essential support services for children in care. Judge Conor Fottrell of the Dublin District Court revealed last week that, in two social work domains, 235 children are without allocated social workers, in violation of Tusla’s national regulations.
The CLP’s documentation also highlights the additional nuances tied with cases involving children from migrant families and unaccompanied minors, including the challenges of language barriers.
The findings presented cases of positive outcomes where kids have flourished while in foster care. In one of these, a teenager who had been fostered for a span of 12 years was welcome to stay indefinitely with her foster family. In another case, a mother managed to overcome her addictions and other personal challenges over eight years to garner increased visitation with her daughter.
Nonetheless, these bright spots are darkened by instances where the child care system falters. Both judges and relevant professionals regularly vocalise their worries and annoyance at the lacklustre response of the Health Service Executive (HSE) in addressing the psychological and disability needs of children in care, as pointed out by the Child Law Project (CLP). The CLP also drawn attention to the active involvement of judges in ensuring progress and holding Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, responsible for any issues.
The CLP has published these 70 reports under a three-year grant from the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth that is set to expire in October. The majority of reports, 67 precisely, were submitted from the District Court, with the Supreme Court, Circuit Court, and High Court each contributing one. Tusla’s requests to take a child into custody or to prolong such a situation accounted for 33 of the District Court reports. Reasons spanning from parental mental health issues, disabilities, drug dependence, homelessness, domestic violence and criminality were recurring themes.
The case of a teenage girl allegedly subjected to sexual abuse and exploitation is shockingly heart-wrenching. The lack of special care bed availability forced the girl, who was taken into Tusla’s care as a youngster, to be placed in a UK unit. The presiding judge condemned this situation as being ‘absolutely shocking’ and ‘the worst ever encountered’. The girl, who displayed the cognitive ability of a 10 year-old while being in her late teens, was reportedly raped and sexually trafficked while in care. Her court-designated protector demanded a critical review of her situation after the girl had to wait among 10 others for a space in a special care unit. Over ten court appearances were made while the girl’s placement remained in private residential care without adequate safety measures.
One evening at 11pm, a young girl reached out to her guardian, expressing her confusion over her whereabouts, and her feelings of hunger and cold. Describing her predicament as beyond indescribable, her guardian collected her from an unidentified city and arranged for her return to her lodgings two hours away. The court was informed that the girl, who regularly disappeared with other children, was at grave risk, and had been picked up by men on several occasions. Her guardian believed that she was subject to sexual exploitation and reported evidence of abuse from her former foster home.
A social worker revealed in court that Tusla and the gardaí had joined forces to look into the allegations of sexual mistreatment and manipulation. The court also learned of recently received life threats aimed at the girl, and a lack of adequate staff to manage special care beds that were available yet unused. Tusla eventually arranged a placement for the girl in the UK, with the intended plan of returning her to Ireland when she turned 18.
The judge was cited in a case study where he remarked that the three younger siblings taken into care due to an ‘appalling’ and ‘unacceptable’ shortfall of proper placements, could potentially sue the State for negligence.
Interim care orders were delayed, with the judge opting instead for a series of week-long extensions in the absence of adequate placements. The fathers of the older three and younger two siblings found themselves in jail in the UK and in Ireland respectively, during which time the mother had another child.
A placement in western Ireland was deemed successful for the two younger children. The older three children, who are of primary school age and had initially been placed with family members, found themselves in numerous emergency care placements for about a month in the lead-up to the court date due to breakdowns in the earlier settings.
An attorney for Tusla pointed out that the older children’s current emergency placement was set to end the next day, and efforts were being made to secure their next temporary placement. The children’s guardian and their mother’s solicitors described their plight as ‘unacceptable’ and ‘appalling’. Making clear their concern over the children being thrust from one placement to another, the mother’s lawyer pointed out their fear of being split up, and raised yet-to-be addressed serious issues concerning Tusla from their past placements.
The magistrate declared that the trio of elder offspring were fundamentally without a home, describing it as “a scandal” that they were susceptible to damage under the supervision of the State. He suggested they may even hold basis for a subsequent civil lawsuit against the State for negligence.
At a subsequent court session, it was conveyed to the magistrate that a stable new home had been pinpointed for the trio of elder children. Consequently, the magistrate issued an additional 28-day prolongation of the temporary custody order with instructions for additional evaluation and the framing of future plans. Included within the plans were access between siblings, an evaluation of the mother’s parenting abilities and plans for family reintegration.