Judge rules father’s ‘considerable problems’ mean children must stay in foster care

By Darragh McCann, The Wicklow People

A judge has ruled that two young children will remain in the care of Tusla citing their father’s “considerable problems” as key to his decision, having heard evidence that the children are suffering night terrors and bedwetting.

A full care order has been granted for the children, after Bray District Court heard evidence that their father had a history of domestic violence and that both children had suffered trauma as a result of their upbringing.

Representatives for the Child and Family Agency (Tusla) appeared before an in-camera family law sitting of Bray District Court seeking the full care order, which allows the agency to assume parental responsibility and make decisions regarding the child’s care, including medical decisions, without requiring parental consent.

A garda testified that the father is a “huge risk”, adding that he is a known domestic abuser currently serving a sentence for a domestic violence incident against his former partner, who is not the children’s mother.

The garda noted he also served a previous sentence for beating a partner.

During cross-examination, barrister for the applicant, Conor Rubalcava, stated that the applicant has never had any prosecution brought against him for violence against his children and admitted his wrongdoing by pleading guilty.

Mr Rubalcava added that the court is aware of the children’s mother, who is also known to gardaí.

He stated that the father’s mother has brought an application for access, with the garda telling the court that the children informed him after the most recent incident that they did not know their grandmother.

A social worker who worked with the children for five weeks after the incident with gardaí, which left the victim seriously injured, said both children were placed in emergency accommodation in the aftermath and the father agreed to voluntary care.

The court was told by a second social worker that the applicant was not cooperative during meetings in relation to the children and was “aggressive”, before later refusing to sign a voluntary care order.

Both children are currently doing extremely well, with them enjoying going for a “chat and ice cream” with the social worker.

She stated that the children are both active, with one involved in sports and excelling in school, but also suffering from low self-esteem and confidence.

“They suffer from night terrors and bedwetting, with it happening quite frequently,” said the social worker.

Solicitor for Tusla, Donnacha Hennessy, stated in a hearsay application that the children had said their father was “being a bully”, including incidents where he would discuss ongoing court proceedings, which would distress them.

However, they also said that he was actively involved in substance abuse, with the social worker recommending that the children be placed in a longer-term stable environment.

During cross-examination, the social worker described foster care as a “safe place” for the children and stated that the applicant needed to work on himself while in prison and engage with relevant programmes.

She further said that the concerns in the case stemmed from a long history of issues, which pre-dated the birth of the children, and formed part of the risk assessment carried out by Tusla.

The court heard that any access arrangements are child-led. While the social worker accepted the applicant had shown some acceptance of his behaviour, she “remained unsure whether he had fully accepted responsibility for his actions”.

Counsel for the father said his client intended to work on himself while in custody, with the social worker agreeing that rehabilitation is possible, but noting that meaningful change would need to occur.

He also raised issues regarding the children’s physical wellbeing, stating that both children had previously been underweight while in the care of Tusla and that he was instructed that his client fed them “steak and eggs”.

A barrister acting on behalf of the guardian ad litem informed the court that long-term matching was recommended and that it was important the children develop an understanding of what had happened, why they came into care and where they came from.

Another family member of the children, who has regular access, made a complaint against Tusla that they had failed to keep in regular contact with her.

Mr Hennessy remarked that this accusation was false, providing screenshots showing regular updates and weekly contact.

A social worker team leader gave evidence that Judge David Kennedy had previously denied an application for access, stating that the children need a stable home, with the father posing a risk to the children obtaining their “forever home”.

“The children’s voices were heard,” said the team leader.

The family member of the children testified that she is currently living at home, but that she is on a social housing list and wished to make an application for guardianship in the near future.

In his judgment, Judge O’Connell stated that Tusla was required to prove that the welfare of the children required the making of a full care order and that the court must be satisfied that it was in their best interests.

Referring to the Child Care Act, the judge noted that the optimum forum for raising a child is the family unit, but said the court’s primary consideration must be the safety and welfare of the children.

Judge O’Connell said he had examined the evidence before the court, including the factual assessments carried out in the case, and noted the trauma both children had suffered and the difficulties they continue to experience.

The judge further noted submissions made on behalf of the father, but stated that access at this time could not be viewed as a positive for the children.

“Separating children from their parents is one of the hardest things a court can do,” Judge O’Connell remarked.

However, he said that it was not realistic to return the children to their father’s care at this time and noted that the foster parents were providing them with stability and support.

He ruled that the children’s welfare is best served by remaining in their current foster placement and granted Tusla’s application for a full care order until both children reach the age of 18.

Judge O’Connell noted that the father retains the right to apply to have the order discharged in the future, but said he must first address his “considerable problems”.

The judge declined to grant access to the other family member at this time, stating that the children needed to be “cocooned”.

However, he directed that the matter return before the court in November 2027 for review on behalf of the guardian ad litem and noted that the family member could make an application for custody or guardianship at that stage.