The District Court has granted a relative carer’s application to move a two-year-old child in care from a general foster placement to the relative’s home, finding the move to be in the child’s best interests.
Judge Conor Fottrell delivered the decision on 27 March 2025 in the Dublin Metropolitan District Court under section 47 of the Child Care Act 1991. The court said such an order about a child’s placement should be made rarely and with considerable caution, and that it had given due consideration to the Child and Family Agency’s recommendations.
The child had been in the Agency’s care under an interim care order since January 2023 and was living with a general foster carer. The relative applicant had been involved in the child’s care since birth. The child had also spent about 10 months in a shared-care arrangement between the foster carer and another relative before moving full-time to the foster placement. The applicant later had weekly overnight access.
The Agency opposed the application. Its social work team supported the child remaining with the foster carer, with respite stays with the applicant. The team cited the risk that another move could affect a child who had experienced early changes in living arrangements. An internal review by two senior social workers also recommended the current placement with ongoing family contact. The child’s mother and court-appointed Guardian ad Litem supported placement with the applicant. The child was too young to express her own views, the judgment said.
The judge accepted there could be upset or distress if the child moved, but found insufficient evidence that trauma from early experiences or a move would definitively emerge later. The court noted that the child was settled in both placements, was meeting developmental milestones and was not reported to be distressed after overnight access. It also considered the applicant’s continuing role in the child’s life and her capacity to manage potential grief or loss.
The judgment identified gaps in the Agency’s decision-making, including the fostering committee not having all available information before its final recommendation and social workers not having observed the applicant and her partner with the child since overnight access began. The court also noted the earlier shared-care arrangement.
Judge Fottrell granted the section 47 application. He asked the professional group to meet promptly and plan the transition, recommending the specialist social worker’s assistance. The court also acknowledged the foster carer’s care and said support would be needed for her and her family.