Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Fitzpatrick's mother died so he cannot attend the meeting today. The committee will convey our sympathy to Deputy Fitzpatrick on his sad loss. Deputy Troy has also sent his apologies that he is unable to attend the meeting.
I remind members, witnesses and people in the Visitors Gallery to ensure their mobile telephones are switched off for the duration of the meeting as they interfere with the broadcasting of the proceedings.
This meeting will hear an update on child protection services and the child care law reporting project. Child protection and child care present a range of complex issues and it is important that this committee on health and children focuses on these issues as a matter of public interest. The Child Care Law Reporting Project is an independent project to report on child care proceedings, to provide information on the operation of the Irish child care system and to promote transparency and accountability. Dr. Carol Coulter's interim report was published last week and has been circulated to members of the committee. This meeting is an important opportunity for us to receive an update on the project and to discuss the implementation of child care policy with a number of leading experts in the field. In this regard, I welcome three eminent experts on child protection, Dr. Carol Coulter, director of the Child Care Law Reporting Project, Dr. Helen Buckley, associate professor at the School of Social Work and Social Policy in Trinity College Dublin, and Ms Ceili O'Callaghan, guardian ad litemand independent child protection consultant, and thank them for attending the meeting this evening.

I apologise as I have a meeting to attend at 6.30 p.m. With the committee's permission, I will ask Deputy Regina Doherty to take the Chair as the Vice Chairman is unavailable. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I advise the witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and witnesses are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Dr. Carol Coulter to make her opening remarks.

Dr. Carol Coulter:

I thank the Chairman and other members of the committee. I have been director of the Child Care Law Reporting Project since it was established in 2012. We attend child care proceedings in court, namely the District Court, and then prepare them for publication on the website. In a sense, this is the reporting aspect, or the public accountability and transparency aspect, of our work. In addition, we collect data on the cases. These are analysed and published in annual reports. There have been two interim reports so far and there will be a third drawing together the data over three years. I have full copies of the interim reports for every member. They are also available on the website.
We do not seek information from sources beyond the court proceedings. A lot goes on at the social worker level, which my colleagues will speak about, and we provide a bird's eye or worm's eye of what happens when the process reaches the court. We have 179 case reports on the website. They range from very lengthy and complex cases, where sex abuse or non-accidental injury to a child is alleged, to much more mundane - perhaps that is not the right word - cases that involve the neglect of a child or children.
It is a combination of circumstances that leads to the family coming before the courts. We collect data not only in these cases, on which we report, but also on those that are mentioned perhaps rather briefly or cases many of whose details resemble those of other cases. In the latter case, we do not feel it is necessary to publish the whole thing. However, we fill in forms that allow us to collect data on families, proceedings, whether families are legally represented, the numbers and ages of the children, whether they have special needs, and the kind of care they are going into. That forms the statistical part of the interim report, which the members have. Those who wish to look a little more deeply into this will look at the evidence in the case reports, how it is contested, the role of the guardian ad litem, the intervention of the judge and what the judges might say during the case, in addition to the judge's decision.
Our findings so far have shown up a number of problems with the existing system, including wide variations in the amount and quality of the support given to vulnerable families before court proceedings are initiated. There is a lack of timely access to and co-ordination between the various services that vulnerable families need. For example, people can fall between the cracks of the HSE's child and family service, now Tusla, or the Child and Family Agency, and the Department of Education and Skills when trying to gain access to various kinds of supports. There are variations around the country in the thresholds regarding which orders are sought by the HSE and also granted by judges. Some judges are much more ready to grant an order that is sought while others will interrogate it much more carefully.
There are different types of orders used in different areas and there are different standards in the evidence presented to court. Particularly outside Dublin, there is a problem owing to insufficient time being devoted to cases, and that can lead to frequent adjournments if the cases are very contested. There are cases spread out over many months and repeated renewals of interim care orders while the family is being investigated. That leads to a worsening of relations between families and the Child and Family Agency. My colleague Ms Ceili O'Callaghan will be able to elaborate on that in more detail. What I describe can lead to the whole process becoming extremely adversarial and stressful for everybody.
The main reason the Child and Family Agency seeks an order is neglect of the child. That can be linked to problems the parents have. The overwhelming problem, which is the one that is most common, is poverty. It is important that this be recognised at the outset. Poverty on its own, however, does not lead to families having to face child care proceedings. Very often, there might be a cognitive or mental disability on the part of the parent, or drug or alcohol abuse. Social isolation is very often a feature of families who are vulnerable in this way. Approximately 70% of the parents are single parents parenting alone. Some 10% or so are cohabiting and only 11% involved married families. With regard to the remaining 10%, parents were missing completely in that children had been trafficked or otherwise, or they just did not feature in the proceedings at all.
We found disproportionate numbers of parents from ethnic minorities, including Travellers. We know from international research that people from ethnic minorities tend to be over-represented among the poor and marginalised in various ways. It should not come as such a surprise but it certainly poses challenges for the child care system that I am not sure we have sufficiently paid attention to as a country.
Almost one third of the children have special needs, most commonly psychological problems. Although I say that, I have not carried out any investigation. What we are talking about is evidence of some kind of special need being mentioned in court. It could just be the need for educational support, or it could be a psychological problem. Understandably, the problem could have arisen from emotional neglect. Abuse, including emotional, physical and sexual, is sometimes a feature.
The legislation provides for four types of orders. Emergency care orders last for only eight days, after which the child must be returned or an interim care order must be sought. Interim care orders are issued where there is reasonable cause to believe the child's health, development or welfare is at risk and a care order is being prepared. They are a kind of holding operation until a decision is made about a care order. A care order applies up to when a child is 18, but there is a phrase in the legislation that refers to an order applying to the age of 18 or for such time as the court might decide. In some courts, that has been used to have short-term full care orders for six months or a year. In this case, the HSE will work with the family trying to get things back on track. This mechanism is very commonly used in some of the Munster cities and towns. It works fairly well in some of those cities and towns because it means people are not back before the courts all the time. There is a particular period in which there are jobs to be done by the family, and sometimes by the Child and Family Agency with the children. Otherwise interim care orders must be renewed every 28 days. That requires the Child and Family Agency's social worker, the Child and Family Agency's lawyers, the parents and their lawyers, the guardian ad litemand usually the lawyers of the guardian ad litemto go to court every 28 days to demonstrate that the conditions still exist for maintaining the order.
During this time, parental access to the child is usually supervised. Supervised access is horrendous, in my opinion, although there are social work specialists here who might have different views. Evidence of what happens during supervised access is used in court as part of the ongoing examination of family circumstances. I do not know any parent who could imagine what it would be like to be having meetings with one's children under such conditions. It is very difficult to imagine relations being spontaneous and natural.
The largest category of applications through the District Court is for the extension of interim care orders. They comprise approximately one third of all applications. In some parts of the country, they comprise much more. Three quarters of applications in Clonmel, Drogheda and Dundalk and two thirds of all applications in Dublin were for extensions of existing interim care orders. Reviews of existing care orders accounted for 10% of all hearings but half of all the hearings in Cork.

In Cork they have short-term full-care orders which come back for review and get examined by the judge or mentioned in court, and that explains that distinction. While this can be a very adversarial process it is important to stress that only a minority of cases are contested by parents because about two thirds of the parents acknowledge that they need help. In that one third category only a small minority of cases are rejected by the court, that is, 4%, and in 7% of cases the order was either modified or withdrawn by the Child and Family Agency.

We have published statistics we got from the Courts Service which show that some District Court areas process many more applications than others. Some of the figures I have given in the presentation are on the website. I have been asked why this is the case and I honestly cannot explain it but there are probably various reasons. It is undoubtedly true that different levels of deprivation probably operate in different towns and the Courts Service has no national template for recording applications. There may be discrepancies in the Courts Service's figures. However, that does not account for all of the differences. Where there is a high level of family support services the incidence of child care orders is likely to reduce. The importance of family support services cannot be overemphasised. Even when we play all of this in, the CFA's statistics show that Cork, Waterford, Limerick and Louth, along with four out of the seven Dublin areas, have a higher proportion of children in care than the national average. There are differences around agency practice as well, The wide variations in the thresholds mean that circumstances which might lead to a child being taken into care in one part of the country will not lead to that in another because of different attitudes on the part of some social work teams and some judges to, for example, cannabis use which would not be regarded as serious in many parts of Dublin but would be regarded as very serious in some rural towns. Certainly, there is a lack of consistency and the crucial question which is whether the child is suffering neglect or is at risk is not then the focus. The focus is on the parental behaviour but it should be on whether the child is vulnerable in those circumstances.

The amount of time available is another factor. In Dublin, two judges sit five days a week. A third judge sits two or three days a week dealing with only child care cases and they get very careful attention which is important. The judges involved have been doing it for a few years and have developed a very high level of expertise. However, other District Court judges, and this is through no fault of theirs, deal with civil District Court matters, criminal matters, road traffic accidents, bail applications and child care and family law. There might be one family law day in a town in a month where there would often be 60, 70 or 80 family law cases on the list, including domestic violence, maintenance applications and so on with the child care applications shoehorned somewhere into the list. It is impossible for them to be heard adequately if there is any kind of contest or difficulty about them. Many of them go through with consent and with renewals but it makes it much more difficult outside of Dublin for the cases to be heard properly.

I am not making final recommendations at this stage because there is another year's research to follow before we produce final recommendations, but we have said there are certain things that could be at least looked at immediately. A special family court is essential where there is a dedicated cohort of judges who can specialise in that area and devote a period of time to it. It is not desirable that judges should only hear family law cases and be cut off from the rest of law, both for their sake and the sake of the development of family law, and we would get very few to agree to do that because it is very stressful. I have yet to meet a judge who is not relieved sometimes to have a little stint dealing with criminal and other cases because of the nature of the cases they are hearing. Similar to having, for example, a commercial division of the High Court, we could have a division of these courts. The Department of Justice and Equality is already looking at this because it features in the programme for Government. Other services such as mediation should be available to a family court in order that people can be diverted from court proceedings.

There are certain legal principles that need to be embedded in a reformed Child Care Act, and the role of mediation needs to be explored further. I do not think that mediation would really have a role in a decision about making or not making an order. That is a very straightforward and important decision because we are interfering with constitutional parental rights and it is only right that the court should make such an order. However, there are other ancillary issues that arise around access, assessments, foster placements and so on that could be dealt with much better through mediation. Much more help should be available for social workers to obtain a little more legal knowledge in order that they understand the kinds of thresholds that are required when they go to court and to have support in that respect.

I reiterate that poverty is a major cause of what is defined as neglect. We need to address child poverty and provide early intervention for the families who need it by way of the types of programmes that exist in a rather patchy way but are often the first to disappear when there is pressure on resources. I refer to programmes such as the community mothers scheme and so on, which only require a relatively small amount of investment and yet produce many positive outcomes for families, and they need to receive adequate resourcing and support.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Dr. Coulter. I call Dr. Helen Buckley to make her presentation.

Dr. Helen Buckley:

My submission concerns the capacity of the Child and Family Agency now and in the future to cope with the demands being made on it. I will provide some data to show it is already under considerable strain and I will propose some alternative strategies that might relieve the pressure that is threatening its effectiveness. I have appeared before this committee previously and made oral and written submissions in 2012, outlining my response to the heads of Bill of the Children First legislation. My main concern then was the impact that the proposed legislation would have on the capacity of services to respond to the demands likely to be made of it. I expressed this in the knowledge that the majority of cases referred to the services were already considered to be below the threshold for receipt of services. I am sure the members are aware that the cases that my colleagues are discussing, namely, those cases that go through the courts, are a small minority of the referrals made to the Child and Family Agency each year, many of which concern situations that could be ameliorated if intervention were available. I am glad to note that following the report issued by this committee, the Children First Bill 2014 has significantly modified the reporting requirements that were proposed and it has strengthened inter-agency responsibilities which is very advantageous but I continue to have concerns about the capacity of the service.

I am sure the committee is aware of recent statistics indicating that in the third quarter of 2014 almost 9,500 children were awaiting allocation of a social worker by the Child and Family Agency and 3,000 of these children were regarded as being at risk. The volume of non-allocated cases and those on waiting lists has been steadily increasing year on year. It is not getting any better. The Minister, Deputy Reilly, recently made a statement to the effect that all children on waiting lists are reviewed, but I am sure the members will agree that the potential for accurate risk assessment in such pressurised circumstances is extremely compromised. It is unrealistic to assume that all of the urgent cases are receiving a response.

Based on calculations presented by the agency, at this point more than 200 social workers, on top of those it already employs, would be required to make any impression on current waiting lists, and the increase that would be triggered when the Children First legislation is implemented is likely to multiply this figure such that it will become out of all proportion to what which currently exists.

However, even if the resources were available and the agency was able to recruit adequate and suitably qualified numbers of staff, the question must be asked as to whether we really want a massive and all-encompassing statutory child protection service. Experience in other countries has indicated that expanding statutory social work services to meet existing child protection demands has resulted in congested systems which are a nightmare to administer and which ultimately become unsafe. I have used the analogy before with this committee of a crammed casualty department where patients have bypassed primary care services in the community to go straight to hospital, making it very difficult for staff to discern those who are most acutely ill. We know from research that most families are fearful of the child protection service - my colleague, Dr. Coulter, has reinforced this point - finding it to be hostile, stigmatising and intimidating. Do we want a situation where more and more families are dragged into this system to be either eliminated or left on waiting lists? A more far-reaching solution is required to meet the needs of vulnerable children and free up the services to deal with the most pressing cases.

I must add that I am well aware of the new community-based prevention and partnership initiatives being established by the Child and Family Agency and I commend the developments being undertaken. I hope that they will be adequately resourced and I believe they will provide an excellent service to those families who are able to avail of them. However, the passage through the cluttered child protection system that is required before many of them reach that point is likely to pose obstacles.

At a very basic level, we need better statistical information with regard to who is referring children to the agency, what the principal issues are and precisely what type of intervention is required. There is no interrogation of existing data to enlighten policy makers. Dr. Coulter has been able to determine some very significant patterns in respect of children going through the courts but we have insufficient data about vulnerable children in the community. I am aware that the agency is developing an information project but this is not expected to come on stream until 2017. In the meantime, we can merely try to estimate the source of early problems in families. On the basis of patterns in other jurisdictions, however, we can approximate that most child welfare issues are identified by teachers and child health practitioners. We know that large numbers of adults with children use domestic violence, addiction and mental health services. It stands to reason that locating social work posts dedicated to child welfare at these sites, particularly schools, is likely to more effective than automatically diverting families to the already overstretched agency. A concerted effort to make adult services more aware of the impact of parental issues on children and the co-location of child and family welfare social workers in those services would make sense. Said social workers could then provide both triage and early intervention so that the needs of children would be met and only appropriate cases would be referred on to the Child and Family Agency. What is required, essentially, is a more robust whole-of-government response.

I note that among the provisions in the Children First Bill is one to establish a statutory interdepartmental group. I am disappointed, however, that the lifetime of this group may be limited to the period during which Children First legislation will be implemented. Establishing it on a permanent basis would promote the likelihood of a more forceful engagement. The planned review of the Child Care Act also presents an opportunity to include health and education among the sectors statutorily obliged to promote the welfare of children. At the very least, I would propose the setting up of a fully-staffed child protection and welfare unit in the HSE, which has 70,000 practitioners that are likely to interface with vulnerable children either directly or through their parents. As this committee heard recently, there is currently one post dedicated to child protection in the HSE and that person's role primarily relates to the implementation of the Children First legislation rather than the development of child protection and welfare responses. I am sure members will agree that this utterly inadequate for an organisation with such constant engagement with children who are exposed to parental drug and alcohol use as well as mental health and disability. Dr. Coulter has illustrated the prevalence of these problems in families going through the court system.

I would also propose the establishment of a similar child protection unit in the Department of Education and, ultimately, the creation of social work posts attached to schools, either singly or in groups. Members will be interested to know that evidence from international research on accessible services such as those to which I refer shows them to be extremely effective, with a high take up by service users because of their less stigmatising nature.

I reiterate the point that, on the basis of recent trends and literally short of a miracle, the Child and Family Agency will not be able to cope with the demands being made of it. Importantly, on the basis of evidence from elsewhere, expanding the agency will not improve matters significantly and may in fact make them considerably worse. The only viable solution is to reduce the pressure on the agency. One proposal in this regard is the provision of early intervention, including social work services, to children and families in the sites where their difficulties emerge. Other radical solutions may also be effective and I urge the committee to give the matter serious consideration.

Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Buckley. I welcome Ms O'Callaghan, thank her for attending and ask her to make her presentation.

Ms Ceili O'Callaghan:

My submission focuses on the current court system and on how child protection services, the Child and Family Agency, assess their concerns and the circumstances of families in respect of whom applications have been made to the courts. I wish to highlight three primary issues, namely, the adversarial nature of court proceedings and the impact of this on children and their families; the lack of evidence-based child protection assessments put forward by social workers who take the lead role in this regard; and the outsourcing of assessments to private providers by the Child and Family Agency.

When an interim care order is granted by the District Court, it is accepted that in most cases a thorough and comprehensive assessment of the child's circumstances will be undertaken, prior to possible reunification with his or her family. During this time, the child is placed in the care of alternative carers. In general terms, it is accepted that the required assessments can take between 12 to 16 weeks to complete. This is known at the outset of proceedings. At a minimum, a social work assessment involves an examination of parental capacity. More often than not, the assistance of a psychologist is required in order to gauge cognitive functioning. In addition, psychological assessments of the children involved and, quite possibly, attachment assessments are required. It is quite a lengthy process.

While assessments are ongoing and as Dr. Coulter noted, the court can grant an interim care order for 28 days unless parental consent is forthcoming. In my experience, this adds significant stress to parents who are already in difficult circumstances and can result in an unnecessarily fraught and adversarial relationship between families and the assessing professionals. Children learn from their parents, social workers or guardians that the matter is re-entered on a monthly basis. This causes uncertainty for children who need to develop a sense of security in respect of their foster carers. It can also cause unnecessary anxiety and hope on the part of those who simply want to return home every month. Many parents are vulnerable adults in their own right. In my opinion, the adversarial nature of proceedings can be compounded for a parent with a learning difficulty who requires the support of an advocate. For both parents and children, the hope or stress involved is unnecessary when assessments are outstanding and it is unlikely that reunification will occur in the absence of completed assessments.

Current delays in the assessment process relate to the Child and Family Agency's inability to identify the professional input required, whether from a psychologist or some other suitably qualified individual. In many cases, parties put forward their proposed independent professional whom the agency then funds. This process can often delay proceedings by a number of months. A possible solution might come in the form of consensus. Once the Child and Family Agency has met the grounds for an interim care order, a mediated meeting between parties could be scheduled in order that agreement might be reached in the context of the assessments required and an agreed timeframe for same. Agreement could also be reached on whether the parents are willing to consent to the order the court is going to make. This would provide clarity for families in terms of where they stand, what they are specifically being asked to do and what is expected of them. Each month I witness the lack of clarity for families and I am aware that they become confused. Many parents hope each month that their children will be returned to them, despite the fact that everyone involved knows that the assessments are outstanding and that it will be at least a further three months before the court can make its decision.

An extended timeframe would allow time for professionals to engage in multidisciplinary assessments. At present and more often than not, the Child and Family Agency outsources assessments to private providers. In my opinion this is not solely based on lack of resources - in view of the fact that the agency funds private assessments, I suggest that there is a false economy involved here - it primarily relates to a lack of multidisciplinary teams that are either accessible to or to be found within child protection teams. A multidisciplinary evidence-based assessment conducted by a social worker should ideally involve the input of a psychologist in circumstances where parental capacity is an issue. In addition, the skills of a public health nurse or child psychologist - if developmental delay is a concern - should also be available. The list of the potential professionals required is endless.

I am of the view that the Child and Family Agency is currently insufficiently prepared for the key task of carrying out comprehensive evidence-based assessments. Social workers who are expected to take the lead role in these assessments require specialist training in evidence-based assessments of families, including in respect of child development. Social workers are not proficient in carrying out evidence-based assessments because, in my opinion, their training lends to a more lateral approach. Specialist legal training is required in order to ensure that they fully understand both the legal framework within which they work and the thresholds which they are expected to meet - or not - in court.

There is no doubt that court work is a specialist area. Currently, within the CFA it forms part of every social worker's caseload, including newly qualified social workers with no experience in the field of child protection. It would not take a lot to put in place specialist teams. The committee has already heard from my colleagues of the low number of cases about which we are speaking in the grand scheme of things. A specialist team would alleviate a lot of the issues I am raising.
The extended timeframe suggested in regard to mediated agreements could be reviewed through monthly meetings attended by parents. Obviously, all parties have liberty to re-enter. If necessary, a court agreed chair could be nominated to mediate the ongoing progress of the case. The primary advantages of this proposal are a decrease in stress levels for children and their families, which is paramount, a decrease in unmet expectations, which is evident on a monthly basis, a removal of adversarial proceedings for many families and an overall reduction in costs. By way of explanation, in one case before the court where there are two parents separately represented and a guardian ad litemappointed there would be four separate legal teams every 28 days. At times, this would include the use of counsel. As matters progress, independent assessments are often commissioned and in many cases second opinions are sought. I suggest that current child care legislation needs to be reviewed to consider the advantages of longer orders or mediated agreements by consensus. It is also recommended that the Child and Family Agency provide the essential training required to carry out evidenced-based assessments in conjunction with access to full multidisciplinary teams.Also, social workers must be provided with adequate legal training to ensure they are equipped with a full understanding of the legal thresholds which are relevant to their work.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I join with Deputy Buttimer in welcoming the delegation to this meeting and thanking them for their thought-provoking contributions. I would like first to address the contribution made by Dr. Coulter. I have looked at the second interim report. One of the striking messages from the findings thus far, bearing in mind the final report has yet to be presented, is the inconsistencies in the system. There is little consistency either in preparation, presentation or the decisions made and outcomes. The situation across the State in regard to the matters reported on is varied.

I note from Dr. Coulter's report a categorisation of what is viewed as the most prevalent or strongest underlying issue, with the result that some of the information is a little skewed in terms even of the HSE's acknowledged position with regard to neglect. Reference is made on page 4 of the report to cognitive disability-mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse. Many, if not all, of the situations reported on would have one underlying factor. Perhaps Dr. Coulter will comment on the need for a more scientific approach, such as multi-categorised assessments in terms of court observations rather than cognitive ability, mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse, some of which can be multi-present. Neglect is a consequence across all areas. According to HSE data in this regard 28.6% of the cases relate to children in care yet according to the data compiled in the context of Dr. Coulter's report neglect arises in only 12.6% of cases. Perhaps when responding Dr. Coulter will comment on whether a more multifaceted methodology would be more informative in this regard. I am not questioning the value of what has been researched and presented. It is hugely important and I welcome it. However, I wonder if a little tweaking might give us a clearer picture of the multidimensional reality of many of the cases that present.

I welcome Dr. Buckley back to the committee. She has posed to the committee a very difficult question to answer. We all agree with her on the need for more social workers within Tusla and the Child and Family Agency. Dr. Buckley made the keen observation that there is a point where this can tip, by which I was taken. Prior to this meeting I had read her pre-circulated submission and was taken by the case she makes. There is an optimum position, which is quite difficult to measure. Dr. Buckley is correct that with the advent of the Children First legislation will, presumably, come a significant rise in reporting and as a result a greater caseload with which to cope. Perhaps Dr. Buckley would advise on how one can measure the right point for which to pitch in this regard. I agree with her - as I am sure will the committee - that this is not about a fire brigade reaction in response to the problem but rather an address and elimination of the problem at its genesis. This is, of course, rooted in poverty, marginalisation and social exclusion. Dr. Buckley's closing commentary that the provision of early intervention and services, including social work service to children and families for whom difficulties emerge, is necessary. I agree with her that this is exactly what needs to be done. All the Tuslas in the world will not properly address, eliminate or eradicate the core causes.

I would like finally to comment on and thank Ms O'Callaghan for her contribution. I am surprised to hear that only a year into the process assessments are being outsourced to private providers. State agencies appear to fall into bad habits quickly. In regard to Ms O'Callaghan's statement that more often than not this is the case, perhaps she would elaborate further. I would have hoped for more from the Child and Family Agency despite the difficulties for it in terms under-resourcing in the current year, etc. Can Ms O'Callaghan offer any additional information in this regard? It is an issue about which I would like to question the agency.

Ms O'Callaghan statement that social workers are not proficient in carrying out evidenced-based assessments is a very important point. Some social workers might take offence at that, or maybe not. Nevertheless, Ms O'Callaghan makes the distinction between specific roles. I would welcome further elaboration from Ms O'Callaghan in terms of her paper, which I have read and very much welcome.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the members of the delegation and thank them for their work they do in their respective roles. In particular, I thank Dr. Buckley because her national review panel report has proved invaluable to this committee. In terms of the child care law reporting project, when the reports come out we learn from them each year. For us it is good to have the evidence which means we understand more and can shape our own thinking. For example, we need to have a court dedicated to family but not solely. Therefore, it is importance for us to listen and hear information.
It was interesting for me to hear about the work of guardian ad litemcases which is where I shall start. Last week when Dr. Coulter launched the report she said that some courts appointed guardian ad litemcases but only 20% of the time. Also, in these cases there was no evidence of the judge speaking directly to the child. Two years ago we voted on a children's amendment which is still before the Supreme Court awaiting adjudication. At that time we clearly said that children should have a voice in issues that affect them. All too often I have heard about cases of where the child is the last person to be spoken to, yet we have heard from a series of Ministers that legal fees are a huge and significant issue. I welcome the views of the delegation because we keep hearing that the legal fees are the problem. I have no doubt there is a duplication in the payment of legal fees. Can the delegation advise when such fees are appropriate? I have seen cases where a guardian ad litemis appointed to a child but not in other cases. Dr. Coulter told us in her report on the child care law reporting project that where one lives is a factor, which means it is a geographical lottery. What are we doing about the matter?
Turning to the issue of early intervention, I understand Dr. Buckley's concerns that we might have a rise in the number of reports due to the Children First legislation. One side of me says that is something is happening we need to know. If we knew there was a serious heart issue or Ebola virus scare we would not say to people to stay at home and wait until we have services in place. Therefore, we must equip the services. I have listened to what was said and agree that we do not have enough social workers. Equally, we cannot put all the investment into such recruitment but not have the services. That is why I pursued the question about the HSE with the Minister for Health ten days ago and emphasised to him it was all of the HSE that needs to be taken into consideration. He took on board what I said but we must wait and see whether something happens.
This committee must push further the idea that child protection is not just an issue for the Department of Children and Youth Affairs and the Child and Family Agency. Child protection is part of all the different Departments where children have a role. The Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Health play the primary strong roles. The committee needs to push that understanding of child protection.
I raised the role of social workers in the Seanad a short while ago with the Minister for Health. I have heard there is a difficulty accessing other services in the health services or agency. Ms O'Callaghan clearly told us about the psychological assessments and so on. People try to access these services. I have been given the example of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, which takes a child into care. When people try to access CAMHS the attitude is almost that a person can pay privately because CAMHS works in the community and cannot be accessed. This is one State body speaking to another. Social workers regularly complain to me that when they try to access CAMHS they are told the child is their responsibility rather than the State services. Social workers also tell me there is a problem accessing social services for parents. Social workers are told they do not understand, yet Dr. Coulter's report to us today mentioned the lack of services in terms of addiction, mental health issues and physical health issues. That proves there is clearly a role for other services.
I would like to ask about ethnic minorities and their vulnerability, which was mentioned. I want to understand the issue more. I think I understand the problem but want to be absolutely sure we understand the issue. I am very pleased the term "Traveller" has been included as an ethnic minority, which is what I believe is correct. How do we assist Travellers?
Direct provision is another issue. To be clear, children are distinguished as either being in the care of the State or cared for by the State. Children in direct provision are being cared for by the State so are not in the care of the State. Therefore, they cannot be inspected by HIQA, while they will say somebody has been seconded from the HSE into the Reception and Integration Agency to look after all those concerns. If I was in a direct provision centre and was told somebody from the Department of Justice and Equality had been seconded to the agency it would mean nothing to me. As a result, I would not report a concern. I am fearful there is a lot more happening in direct provision centres than we realise and more than we could imagine. If I was in a centre I do not know if I would have the courage to report something. Does anyone know what happens in these centres? How can we ensure people get the interventions and supports they seek?
Those are all my questions because I want to leave space for my colleagues. I have taken note of the Child Care Act amendments that have been suggested and we will take them on board.

Colm Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for being late but I had to attend a health debate in the Seanad for the past two and half hours which included the Minister's responses to questions. I have a question on Dr. Coulter's report on records and refer to paragraph 19 which states: "The Courts Service has no national template for recording applications, and there may be double counting". Has there been any engagement with the Courts Services about putting a template in place to show a clear record of cases? Perhaps Dr. Coulter has covered this area in her response.
Paragraph 22 refers to cases being adjourned repeatedly. Dr. Coulter said this is due to different judges sitting on different days. That means when a case is adjourned there might be a different judge adjudicating on the next occasion. Has the Courts Services been consulted on ways to improve this situation? This problem is not new and has gone on for years.
I have done a small bit of court work and I have not done too much in regard to care orders. From my small experience of the matter, there are constant adjournments particularly with family law because different judges preside. If the judge who heard the case initially is not sitting on a particular day the case will be adjourned again. Has the Courts Services been contacted about improving this situation? We are talking about making some long-term changes. Are there immediate changes that can be put in place? There is nothing worse than a case going on ad infinitumand parties having to go in and out of court with no long-term solution available.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it all right with the delegation that we take Deputy McLellan now as she is the last speaker? Agreed.

Sandra McLellan (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their informative presentations. I only read them this afternoon so shall now go back through them again. I wish to mention a couple of aspects, some of which have been covered.

Ms O'Callaghan mentioned that there is a need to carry out comprehensive, evidence-based assessments, in liaison with a full multi-disciplinary team and to consider the advantages of longer orders. I understand the need for stability for the child. I believe cases need to be dealt with speedily, which would benefit the child and the family.

Is there a worry it could drag on for a long time if it does not have a specific timeframe?

We spoke about training. Is this on-the-job training or off-site training? What type of costs would be involved in that?

Dr. Buckley mentioned the allocation of social workers and that there are 9,500 children awaiting the allocation of a social worker, 3,000 of whom are regarded as at risk. She said that in such pressurised circumstances they would be extremely compromised, that it is unrealistic to assume that all of the most urgent cases are receiving a response and that, according to her calculation, we would need 200 more social workers. What are our chances of getting them?

There are funding issues. Money was allocated in the budget but from what I gather from previous meetings, the money allocated in the budget will not be enough even for the agency to stand still. What implications will that have for accessing the 200 more social workers we need to deal with the problem?

A viable solution for the agency was mentioned. One proposal was the provision of early intervention and services, including social work services, to children and families in the sites where difficulties emerge. Should services be outsourced and if so, to whom would they be accountable? Who would administer those local services?

The inconsistencies throughout the country struck me. In almost every aspect, things are done differently. Dr. Coulter stated that in Cork, almost half of all hearings were reviews of existing orders and that care orders are made for relatively short periods of time - typically six months. What is the identifiable reason for this? Is it a matter for the judge or the particular court? What system is best and how do we measure it? It was stated on a couple of occasions that we do not have national templates or databases, so how do we measure this?

Two of the presentations mentioned child poverty and I refer to UNICEF's report last week where Ireland came 37th out of 41 countries. That is something on which we need to work and of which we should be ashamed.

Dr. Helen Buckley:

I will start with Deputy Ó Caoláin's question about measuring the tipping point, which was a very good question. To refer back to my submission, I said the data produced by the Child and Family Agency is very poor. All we really know is how many children are referred to the service and how many are screened out at the other end. It does not give very accurate figures on the causes. My colleague, Dr. Coulter, has probably been the first person to shine a light on what the most prevalent problems are for children in terms of the court system. Many more children are experiencing parental factors which do not even get as far as the court system. We require good data, we need to know who is making referrals, what are the problems and what are the interventions that are working. The partial solution to that is that the agency should improve its data collection methods and the Department should oversee this. Not only should it collect better information but it should interrogate that information more efficiently so that it can measure aspects such as the tipping point, where are the gaps and where the services might make a difference.

I very much appreciate Senator van Turnhout's interest in these issues, in particular her efforts to put pressure on the HSE to pay attention to the need for investing resources in child protection. A review of the Child Care Act could answer the question raised by Deputy McLellan also in terms of who will provide these services and who they will be accountable to. I would like to see the Departments of Education and Skills, Health and Justice and Equality identified as statutory agents in respect of providing services for children so that there could no longer be any prevarication about who provides services and that there is transparency and accountability. Governance is very important.

When I refer to investing in services in the sites where the problems arise, I am not referring to informal community-based services but to trained social workers who have the capacity to assess the severity of problems and, where necessary, to refer them to the statutory services.

Dr. Carol Coulter:

Again, starting with Deputy Ó Caoláin's questions, in my report I warn that the statistics I have collected are by no means the last word. Statistics only ever present snap-shots of situations. When we started out we were not exactly sure what we would find because this is the first time anything like this was done. We collected the information we thought might be available, in particular information on families which had not otherwise been collected, as Dr. Buckley said. It is true that in our figures it appears that neglect is under-represented. Just identifying neglect does not go far enough. It is necessary to see what else might be there. Where we found other triggers for the neglect featuring in the evidence, we noted them even though it is rare that it is one thing or the other. There is a huge amount of overlap.
At this stage I do not propose to alter the way in which we collect data because we will produce cumulative data over three years and if we alter the manner in which we collect it that will distort what we find at the end because we will have new ingredients that will have an effect. That is the answer to the question on tweaking.
We compare our data with the HSE's data but the HSE does not distinguish between court ordered care and children in care. Its figure relates to all children in care but there are differences. We have already identified that, predictably, there is a higher number of children in voluntary care with relatives than in court ordered care. There is likely to be other differences between the children in court ordered care and the children in voluntary care for obvious reasons, where the families come to an agreement with the HSE about the child going into care. The period of time they spend in care are probably different as well. It would require the kind of data collection to which Dr. Buckley referred, which will have to be done by the Child and Family Agency itself to try to dig that bit deeper into some of those figures.
In regard to guardian ad litemcases and judges not speaking to the children, this is just what we have observed. The places where there is relatively little use ofguardian ad litemtend to be the places where there is not a huge volume of child care applications. Dublin uses guardian ad litemfrequently, as do some of the other big cities, but it is at the discretion of the judge. The President of the District Court has organised a number of seminars for her colleagues on child protection matters, which have been attended by specialists in the area. They are voluntary but I understand they have been very well attended. It is the Judiciary itself which would bring about consistency. I hope that with the establishment of a judicial council, where education and training are one its functions, it will permit a huge step forward in regard to the development of consistency among the various members of the Judiciary.

I hope the establishment of a judicial council, one of the functions of which will involve education and training, will lead to a huge step forward in the development of consistency among the various members of the Judiciary. Obviously, there are other issues in relation to how these matters are dealt with by different judges. While we are on the subject of the Courts Service and the Judiciary, I would like to respond to something said by Senator Colm Burke. The Courts Service has alerted me to some anomalies in its figures. It is about to roll out a national template. I hope that next year - certainly the following year - the statistics will be collected on the basis of this national template, which will allow for much better comparisons than those that have existed up to now.

I was also asked about the prevalence of adjournments. I am not sure what can be done in the absence of an increase in judicial resources, by which I mean the appointment of more judges and the support staff they need. The Courts Service, which puts court clerks' bums on seats to ensure courts are open, etc., has lost 40% of its budget since the start of the crisis. I would like to put it on the record that I have seen great dedication from the courts staff and members of the Judiciary, who often sit until 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. to try to clear lists and ensure all cases are dealt with. The courts staff are courteous and helpful to the people who appear. It is not anyone's fault. It is simply the case that there is insufficient capacity in certain parts of the system. Family law has been expanding exponentially over the past ten or 15 years. The system has not been designed to cope with it. That is why it is necessary to do something radical. I know the President of the District Court is constantly juggling the judges that might be available and checking whether an unassigned judge can be sent somewhere to help if there is going to be a long case. It is like trying to pour a gallon into a pint pot. This work is being done without being able to overcome the problems in a meaningful way.

The issue of ethnic minorities is a very complex one. They are disproportionately represented in the system for a number of reasons. Travellers are socially isolated anyway, as we know. I think they are under-represented in our statistics, if anything, because the only basis on which we record that someone is a Traveller is if evidence has been given of that person's circumstances that makes it clear. We do not guess that they might be Travellers. They might be settled Travellers. We only know if evidence is given with regard to a halting site or some kind of discriminatory experience. I think they are under-represented. We have found that when they reach court, the circumstances of the children are often much more extreme than the average, which is quite disturbing. This raises the question of whether the intervention is coming at a very late stage. It is possible that these problems were present in the families in question for quite some time - perhaps some years - before they reached the point of care order proceedings.

We do not have a great deal of evidence with regard to other ethnic minorities and the issue of direct provision. All I can say is that some individual cases in which mothers in direct provision suffered severe mental collapses have come through and ended up in the courts system. One can surmise that direct provision did not help in those cases. In a typical case of this nature, the child was taken into care following a mental health crisis on the part of the mother, who was alone. The mother is sometimes hospitalised until she returns to an even keel, more or less, after a period and the family is reunified. Various individual cases in which such incidents have occurred are reported on the website. While I certainly think direct provision has played a role, it is not the only factor. There are two other factors that we have seen in relation to African families, for example. First, the numbers have been inflated by the fact that unaccompanied minors are frequently African. I am sure the committee will agree it is good they get rescued by the child protection service, as it is likely that many of them would be in very bad circumstances otherwise. Second, there is a cultural issue that relates to African families and to families from certain other ethnic minorities. Families from eastern Europe are also disproportionately represented. They often display child-rearing practices, such as attitudes towards physical discipline, that bring them to the attention of teachers and social workers. This raises wider issues about the integration of ethnic minorities and how we can ensure they are aware of what we regard as our norms.

I think I have responded to most of the matters that were raised. Reference was made to inconsistencies in different care orders. I think they have developed because different practices have existed in various HSE sections over the years. When we consider what is better, we need to focus on the role of data collection in ensuring outcomes for children are measured. For example, we should examine whether there are more reunifications in places where the norm is to have a short-term care order followed by a review. We do not have those data. We have been trying to get them but it has been very difficult for us to do so. We have been asking some of the legal teams concerned whether they can get those data for us. I absolutely agree that the types of orders that appear to produce the best outcomes for families should be examined. At the moment, all we can do is point to something we have found and hope it will prompt a little more investigation.

Ms Ceili O'Callaghan:

I will begin by responding to Deputy Ó Caoláin. When I spoke about outsourcing, I was referring to a very small part of the CFA's role in court proceedings. I wish to clarify that, in my experience, there are many outsourced assessments. For example, risk assessments of alleged perpetrators of abuse would be outsourced by the CFA. I am not aware of any area in Ireland that conducts its own risk assessments. Psychological assessments are outsourced due to the lack of availability of an in-house psychologist. That can go on for a number of months. A similar point can be made with regard to speech and language assessments. The list can be endless. All of these matters relate to court proceedings. As Dr. Coulter suggested earlier - I am interpreting what she said - it is possible there is a two-tier system in this area. It is arguable whether children in court receive services more quickly than other children, but it is a question that needs to be looked at. It is definite that these assessments are outsourced because the CFA or the HSE could not provide them within the required timeframe.

I hope I was not insulting any of my social work colleagues when I spoke about evidence-based assessments. My remarks were meant to be of assistance. The reality at a very basic level is that a newly qualified person with no legal training and no training with regard to producing evidence could find himself or herself on the stand after two months, giving evidence on why a child should remain in the care of the CFA. I believe it is right that social work training is generic in nature. I do not think people in colleges should be trained specifically in child protection. The shortfall occurs in the training they receive from the agency that is employing them in how to perform this very important role. To the best of my knowledge, people are not trained in how to conduct evidence-based assessments. Maybe they receive such training in some parts of the country. I would argue that evidence-based assessments have to be multidisciplinary. Social workers do not work in isolation. Child protection should be done across the professions. Social workers are not qualified to do certain assessments, such as cognitive functioning assessments. There has to be a joining up of services. That is where the outsourcing comes. All the issues that have been raised in the questions cross over in terms of what I am proposing.

Deputy McLellan spoke about the advantages of longer orders. She asked whether I would be worried they might drag on and wondered whether I would be in favour of a specific timeframe. I am suggesting that specific timeframes would avoid the dragging on and the drift. When the CFA makes its first or second application for an interim care order, all parties accept that something has to change and that assessments need to be conducted. A timeframe should be agreed for all that in order that there is an expectation that when those involved come back to court after four or six months, the assessment will be completed and the judge will be able to make a decision on the longer-term plan for the child. The experience at present is that these things tend to drift on for over a year. This links into some of the other things to which I have referred, such as the argument about whether to outsource if provision cannot be made by the CFA.

Such arguments can take months while children are in care separate from their parents. My proposal is on having a mediated agreement at the beginning, with the people to conduct the assessments identified. This would establish an expectation regardless of whether the CFA provided its own staff or whether it outsourced. That argument is a longer-term one but at least this would in some way save a lot in costs in terms of coming back into court every 28 days with four separate legal teams. My main issue is the drift associated with children who remain in care. It would be useful to analyse the children who are unified.If one analysed what happens in the year and a half before children go home, one might find they could go home a lot earlier if there were agreements and set timeframes. That is my experience not only in my current role as a guardian ad litem, but also in the 16 years I practised in child protection. I have always believed this could be done more efficiently. That is where those issues come from.
In regard to legal training, I think the CFA can provide it itself. It pays a lot of money for its own legal advisers and I believe that could be part of the package.

Catherine Byrne (Dublin South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their very interesting submissions. I greatly appreciate that they took the time to be so specific about certain matters. I have one or two comments and a question. I am still in shock after reading about the 9,500 children waiting to be allocated a social worker and having realised that 3,000 of them are high risk. What is deemed high risk?

Recently, I have taken time to speak to principals in the area I represent. Some of the cases they come across in primary schools are quite frightening, and teachers and principals are distressed over how they are being dealt with. Trying to get children into a service has become a significant difficulty for them, and they all stressed that to me.

I have learned from where I live and where I worked in the community before I became a Member of the Oireachtas that the problem seems to be generational. It seems to extend through generations of families. One of the reports referred to poverty and isolation. I do not disagree with this but knowing the number of services on the ground, particularly community services such as after school programmes, family resource centres, local projects and even parenting courses, and the millions of euro that go into them each year, I wonder whether there are too many services rather than one service that would be able to deal with everything. Sometimes I suspect many of these services duplicate one another.

Recently, I was at a mass in my parish where a man spoke about fostering and said the number of children in Dublin 8, 10 and 12 requiring foster care was the highest in the country. He was looking for more foster parents. I was really taken aback by that. I wondered where we are going wrong. A huge amount of money is being pumped into the system and yet we still have this growing phenomenon of children being put into care.

Dr. Buckley said a more far-reaching solution is required. Will she expand on that? Insufficient data were mentioned. This is one of the main problems we have. Down through the years when working with young children in youth clubs, I always found that most of the children we dealt with locally were first identified as being at risk by the teachers in primary school. That seems to still be the case. I do not believe we give enough credit to teachers who can identify the significant needs children have from speaking to and working with them. We must pay tribute to them because teaching is a very important part of all our lives. For teachers to have insight and to be able to identity children at risk is of great benefit.

Dr. Carol Coulter:

In regard to the view that there are too many services and services duplicating one another, the CFA is now attempting to rationalise many of the services. What we have seen among people coming before the courts is that they have not received the kind of targeted and appropriate support they need in a timely fashion. The importance of matching people to the services they need requires more attention, in particular if people are suffering from a cognitive disability. It often only comes to light when they become the parents of children because in school a mild intellectual disability does not trigger any supports. It does not trigger any supports for adults who suffer from cognitive disability. Parenting is not easy for anybody. The child might have special needs but even if he or she does not, the demands of parenting might mean that some kinds of supports are required. However, it can be very difficult to access them. Unless the child has a diagnosis of what is called a moderate intellectual disability, which I would always regard as quite severe, it is very difficult to access the kinds of supports and interventions necessary. I am not sure about there being too many services and about the duplication of services. I believe the CFA is examining that but I have certainly seen a lack of appropriate, targeted and timely supports for the people who need them. Without them, they end up in what is a much more expensive and difficult situation. I refer to the need for out-of-home care, which is very expensive, not to mention very traumatic for everybody involved.

I agree with the Deputy's remarks about teachers who deserve great credit for being the first port of call for many children. Very often circumstances will have been quite bad for quite some time.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Supports have to be made available in the Department of Education and Skills also because we expect teachers to carry out this role. The Department does not necessarily recognise that role. That is something about which we should be ringing alarm bells.

Ciara Conway (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is correct. It is a clear issue.

Dr. Helen Buckley:

Let me respond on the statistic that 3,000 children are at risk. Children are at risk of significant harm if an intervention is not made. That would be the definition of the Child and Family Agency. The underlying point of my submission is that the agency is like a time bomb. It is not coping and will not cope. The quarterly reports it has produced indicate a steady increase in the number of cases that are unallocated. This is likely to get worse when the Children First Bill is enacted because there will be more anxiety on the part of reporters to do their duty and report on children.

On the question of what a more radical strategy would be, I suggest that we boost these supports in the Department of Education and Skills, as Senator van Turnhout said. I agree that teachers are not social workers and need extra resources to help them. Likewise, the health services need extra resources. It is a serious problem that needs serious consideration because it is not getting any better.

Colm Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am involved in a project in Cork city with 30 children who have dropped out of school. We are getting €47,500 from the Department to run the centre. One of the religious orders put in €90,000 and a private enterprise is now prepared to put up €45,000 but neither Department will put in support funding.

Technically, the schools these 30 children attended are still getting the money from the Department and yet they will not take the children back. The problem is what do we do with these 30 children at the end of December. In many cases, there is no parental support for them. We are falling between two stools. This is also happening in the Dublin area where there is a similar centre to the one in Cork. The education system does not suit everyone but there is a failure among Departments to recognise that fact.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I totally agree with the Senator. That issue and some of the other issues highlighted today can be the subject of the quarterly meeting we will have with the Minister next week. I thank the witnesses, Dr. Helen Buckley, Dr. Carol Coulter and Ms Ceili O'Callaghan, and recognise those from FLAC, the child care law reporting project and Ms Stephanie McCarthy in the Visitors Gallery.