Judgment: 2026-03-11 · Court archive

Judge criticises Child and Family Agency as 13-year-old remains missing from care for weeks

Dublin Metropolitan District Court · [2026] IEDC 4

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • A
  • Child and Family Agency
  • Judge Conor Fottrell
What

Judge criticises Child and Family Agency as 13-year-old remains missing from care for weeks

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Read the report below for the decision and any reasons given.

A District Court judge has sharply criticised the Child and Family Agency after a vulnerable 13-year-old remained missing from care for more than three weeks while no suitable registered residential placement had been provided.

Judge Conor Fottrell delivered the anonymised decision in Dublin on 11 March 2026. It was the sixth time in a month that the case had come before the court.

The child had been missing from his Special Emergency Arrangement, or SEA, placement since 17 February, having also been missing for five days before that. Although he had some telephone contact with his social worker and court-appointed Guardian ad Litem, no professional had seen him in person for almost a month.

The Guardian ad Litem described him as an extremely vulnerable young person with a history of risk-taking behaviour, criminal association and substance misuse. He had made clear that he did not want to return to the SEA and was believed to be moving between different locations.

Three weeks before this decision, the court had ordered the Child and Family Agency to provide a suitable and appropriate registered residential placement. That order had not yet been complied with.

The Agency told the court that a residential placement which had previously appeared to be available was no longer an option. The SEA therefore remained the only placement being offered, as had been the case since the previous November.

Judge Fottrell said the situation remained extremely concerning and that the child continued to face a significant risk of harm. He said it was difficult to understand how a 13-year-old child in care could remain missing for almost a month without progress in locating him or providing a suitable registered placement.

The judge described the Agency's position as completely unsatisfactory and unacceptable. The immediate priority, he said, was to find the child safe and well, while the Agency was also required to comply urgently with the existing placement order.

The interim care order was extended for one week only.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review