Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a good many questions so I hope we will have a second round. I had questions prepared but then created a whole new document as the debate proceeded. I need to get something off my chest as I will not be able to speak for the rest of the time if I do not. I believe criminality and grooming were mentioned. This makes me uncomfortable because it places the idea that there is some sort of risk to young people in that the likelihood of their being involved in criminality is going to become some sort of a red flag for State involvement in communities that are being seriously let down. The criminal people accused of grooming have themselves lived in poverty in most cases. Some of them have been through the care system and have been failed massively by the care system itself. They have been failed by the residential system. Many of them have ended up in the prison system. It is repetitive. I wanted to say that when we talk about grooming, poverty has groomed us all in a sense and that means that those who actually get involved in drug dealing have also been failed. Sometimes I need to say that because I feel as though we are constantly looking for the bogeyman that is creating all these issues when actually he is also part of a failed system in and of itself. I needed to say that because I was getting triggered.

I know that is not the intention. I know they are all reasons that will come into play when we are looking at communities that are heavily impacted by this stuff. However, we need a certain amount of analysis when we think and talk about these issues.

I will start on the voluntary care orders. We have spoken a lot about them but sometimes I need to ask it in my own way to fully to get to the crux of this. Regarding parents receiving independent advice and support, that will not be put on a legislative footing in the general scheme, though it should be, because of the imbalance of power, the dynamic being skewed and Tusla holding so much power within that, but I could be wrong. In addition, some information is needed for children to understand voluntary care agreements. Especially when kids get to teenage years, we can see how let down some teenagers feel because they feel, for example, that their mam gave them or up or their dad did not fight for them. A lot of feedback I have had over the years was that mostly mothers but, in some cases fathers, felt that they had no other option. They felt that the voluntary aspect was not real in the first place. If they refused the voluntary, what happens? There is a threat of court. They think they are doing the right thing by the voluntary care order but it kind of comes back to bite them later on in their relationship with their teenage children and so on. Perhaps we need some understanding for the family of what problems may arise within that.

On the standards of oversight, when it is children in care under voluntary agreements and those in care under the auspice of a care order from the courts, the courts will make certain directions in terms of access, visits, referrals, specialist service and therapeutic supports. We have spoken about the necessities for those supports. We are very focused sometimes on the alternative care piece without ensuring the supports are in place before a care order is even asked for, again setting families up to fail to an extent. Sometimes it can appear that services exist but then there are many barriers or waiting lists to get in, and time ticks on. Before we go to a care agreement, when we look at the types of supports that can be put in place when a child comes under court care and sometimes also privately accessing the supports for the children, is there not a case to be made that a care order should not happen until all the supports are fully in place so that the parents and the children have received the extra resources and supports? The services should be implemented before the care order. I know that cannot be the case if there is an immediate risk to life. I am talking about where there are more long-term issues.

Later, I will speak to the fact that “likely to come to harm” is included in the legislation as well, which is a big red flag because I do not know what “likely” means. We will flesh that out. I am worried the phrase “likely to come to harm” could end up with kids being taken out of family homes too soon. I am also worried, in respect of the earlier discussion, about the idea of criminal exploitation being seen as “likely to come to harm” because perhaps there is some criminal activity within the family or wider family. They all thread together, if that is easy for the witnesses to follow. I can clarify my questions as we go on.

Does Tusla know the number of children who are currently subject to full care orders who were previously subject to voluntary care agreements or recurring interim care agreements? Understanding those statistics will give us an insight into the number of families who are reunified after voluntary care agreements and the interim care orders – both of them.

Under head 18, section 18 of the Child Care Act is amended such that the threshold for granting a care order will decrease slightly through the addition of – this is the bit I was talking about a minute ago – "is likely to be". That is, that the court is satisfied that “the child has been, is being, or is likely to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected or sexually abused”. I understand that it may be easy to determine that in some of those categories but not necessarily all of them. I would like to understand the thoughts of the witnesses on that addition and how we safeguard children. How does someone determine that someone is likely to be neglected? They could be currently neglected. I do not understand. The family is, for example, experiencing poverty or perhaps the father has gone to prison. I do not understand how “likely to be neglected” is a thing. Surely, if it is “likely to be”, that is when the full-on support should go in place anyway as a preventative measure. I would like the thoughts of the witnesses on that.

The threshold for care orders to be granted should be quite high, making it possible for a court to grant an order where a judge thinks it is likely that harm might come to be perceived as being quite a low threshold. With my background in addiction, my concern is that parental drug use does not in and of itself mean that harm will come to a child. In some cases, some social workers or services may not understand the cultural context the children are living in within a particular community and they may have some sort of idea or threshold in their head of what harm is. What is the definition of “likely to be harmed” in a household where there is, for example, addiction and so on? Social workers will go to court, make solid cases and use whatever evidence they think is possible. Sometimes, it is out of proportion with what is happening within communities and family homes.

In respect of all the sections of the Bill that we are talking about, as I said at the start, we focus heavily on the alternative care elements instead of what we should do to ensure the supports are in place. Returning to that original question, is there a way that we should advocate and fight so that before a court order is given, we have to make sure the services are accessible and in place for the family or parents before we start making requests of them to do X, Y and Z?

On the interim care orders, head 17(3) proposes an amendment to section 17. This is for the Department, but I would like Tusla’s view on it. It amends the principal Act so that when the 29 days expire, it would be possible to apply to extend the interim care order, ICO, for up to 12 months with the consent of parents or in loco parentisin a manner set out in the proposed new subsection in head 17(3). Twelve months strikes me as quite a significant period for an interim order to be granted. Why was 12 months chosen as opposed to, for example, three or six months? Why is that 12 months? I understand it is good to reduce in-court time and the stresses of that. However, the benefit of an ICO is that the court maintains oversight and social workers work more expediently if it is a shorter period, rather than having a longer period where there is a bit more of a lag in what support is implemented or offered to the family.

I have some questions around healthcare assistants, which would fall into the childminding piece. I refer to when a healthcare assistant provides private care to a child with additional needs. Some healthcare assistants also, in a way, act as child carers because they are not always providing healthcare. Sometimes they stay within the home while the mother is out at work for three or four hours but they are framed as healthcare assistants. Does the general scheme address those issues of care through additional care needs? Does the Department recognise those assistants as childminders under the Act? By consequence, they must remove the in loco parentisrule. Adversely, if they do not, they strip the essence of childhood away from those with complex needs. That is one question.

What efforts is the Department making to ensure that children with disabilities are represented within the legislation, especially in head 9 and throughout? The membership criteria for the CYPSC and the national childcare advisory committee allows for other persons or bodies, without expressly recognising disability services and family carers.

The ombudsman and Barnardos expressed concern and recommended that parents and carers be included. In its submission to the review, the Child Care Law Reporting Project, the Bar Council and the Legal Aid Board all proposed that parents should have access to legal advice, as I said. It is about whether that should be on a legislative footing.

On the timeframe after which foster carers can apply for enhanced rights, what is the rationale around reducing the period from five years to three years? In subhead (2) of head 25 regarding the amendment of section 43A of the principal Act, while it is positive that enhanced rights will not be provided for in cases of voluntary care agreements, it does not state that they will not be extended to circumstances of interim care orders. What does that do to the relationship? My initial concern about reducing the time from five to three years relates to parents who are engaging. Why reduce the time and give additional rights such as for signing forms, giving consent and such additional rights if the parent is engaging? It somewhat strips the agency and involvement of the parent. When I was reading this, I felt there should be some sort of criteria attached to it. If the parents are not engaging with social workers or access and are not engaging actively in the child's life, perhaps a case could be made to reduce the time from five to three years to give the foster parents or whoever has care of the children additional rights to be able to sign to give consent and have more involvement in decisions around the child, but not if the parents are involved. It somewhat further removes the involvement of the mother or father from the child's life and disconnects the parent-child relationship. What is the rationale? Should strict criteria be attached to the conditions under which a carer can apply for such a reduction so that it is not an automatic reduction?

I have more questions for the ombudsman and Barnardos, but I will leave it at that for now as there is a lot in that.