Aideen Hayden (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the Seanad and congratulate her on the trojan work she is doing in the area of children and young people.

As the Minister said in her opening statement, the Bill is of a technical nature and provides clarity for those in the legal system and, more important, for those working in the child care sector in situations where an interim care order has been granted and where consent has not been obtained from parents or guardians and will extend the period of orders from eight days to 29 days.

Interim care orders are granted where an urgent need for protection of a child arises, pending the determination of a care order application by the HSE in the District Court. It is important to stress that the interim care order is granted pending the determination of a care order in the District Court. Under section 17(2)(b) of the Child Care Act 1991, where there was no parental consent to an application for an interim order that order could only be granted for a period not exceeding eight days. Where the consent of a parent or guardian was given, the period could exceed eight days. There was an amendment to the 1991 Act in the Children Act 2001 which changed the wording from eight days to 28 days. Therefore, where consent was not forthcoming or could not be obtained, the period of the interim order could not exceed 28 days.

The 1991 Act also allowed for an extension to an interim care order. It is on the extension that we are focusing today. The 2001 Act did not change the time period for the extension of an interim order under the 1991 Act, which remained at eight days. Therefore, although the practice arose of granting extensions for a further 28 days, consistent with the other provisions made by the 2001 Act, the President of the District Court rightly determined that unless there was the necessary consent the court could not extend the period of an interim care order for more than eight days. On the face of it, this made sense. Not only could the court not exceed its jurisdiction but in the absence of consent we would all accept that we must be careful to ensure that any committal of a child into care should be for no longer than is necessary. However, as has been carefully put to us by the Minister, the evidence from practice is that a change to bring about clarity and consistency was necessary. The change sought was to remedy a possible defect or omission in the 2001 Act by synchronising the two time periods.

The HSE has sought this change in the best interest of children and their families. Frequent applications, as the Minister has pointed out, to the court to extend an interim care order are not helpful to the child, the State or the services provided in the interest of the child. Moreover, these applications are taking up court time and valuable child protection resources in staff having to be available for court appearances. There is an understandable concern that this practice is wasteful for the HSE, the Courts Service and those acting for children, such as parents and guardians ad litem, and that the practice is unnecessary and wasteful.

The change sought is interesting. The application for an extension of an interim care order is not to 28 days but to 29 days. This is to allow for housekeeping, as the Minister has pointed out, and is eminently sensible, in that it allows cases to be heard on the same day each week in court.

I am supportive of what is being done here. There is, however, always public concern where the power of the State to remove a child without the consent of his or her parents or legal guardian is extended, and it must be shown to be necessary. With that in mind, I have two questions for the Minister. The first is on a point of clarification. In her opinion, was the retention of the original time period for the granting of extensions to an interim care order under the 2001 Act an omission by the Legislature or was it intended to retain the period of eight days? Does the Minister have a view as to why the Legislature did not extend the period to 28 days, as it did in the granting of interim orders where the consent of the parent or guardian was not given?

Second, given that an interim care order is intended to protect a child until the HSE can proceed with a full application and that the interim order itself is for a duration of 28 days and intended to be temporary, why are successive extensions of interim care orders necessary and why are full applications not proceeded with by the HSE?