In the matter of Child B – Special Emergency Arrangement

Neutral Citation: [2026] IEDC 3 AN CHÚIRT DÚICHE THE DISTRICT COURT DUBLIN METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COURT THE CHILDCARE ACT 1991 SECTION 18 & SECTION 47 IN THE MATTER OF B (a child) THE CHILD AND FAMILY AGENCY Applicant -and- BA Respondent -and- BC Guardian ad Litem Decision of Judge Conor Fottrell delivered on 11th of March 2026 Introduction: 1. This case relates to a 17-year-old child who is subject to a care order which was granted in 2009. 2. There is no formal application currently before the Court. Nevertheless, this case has been under regular court review in relation to the issue of a placement for the child and planning for the child’s aftercare when he turns 18 years old later this year. 3. Given the very serious concerns that have been highlighted by the professionals in this case around the young person’s safety and current wellbeing, the Court has taken the unusual approach of providing a written decision at this time. 4. Unfortunately, there are no parents involved in or represented at the court proceedings. 5. The mother has not had any contact with the child for several years and the father’s whereabouts are unknown. 6. The child’s interests are represented by the court-appointed Guardian ad Litem, who is represented by a solicitor. 7. The Health Service Executive (“HSE”) are represented at the proceedings as a courtesy to the Court, although they are not formally a notice party. 8. The case has been back in before the Court on approximately 50 occasions since the child’s long term foster placement broke down, and nine times over the last month. 9. The child is currently placed in a Special Emergency Arrangement (“SEA”). Background: 10. The family have been known to the social work department for over 20 years, with several older children placed into care, all of whom have now reached the age of majority. 11. The concerns expressed at the time related to neglect of the children and parental difficulties with alcohol abuse. 12. This child was placed into care days after birth, when a referral was received noting the child’s mother had presented to hospital having given birth unattended by medical services. 13. There were concerns raised in relation to the mother’s alcohol misuse throughout her pregnancy and her ability to care for the child. 14. On discharge from the hospital, the child was placed with foster carers who also cared for the older siblings. 15. Initially, the child had frequent access with his mother, but this stopped and there has been no access or contact now for several years. 16. The child was subsequently diagnosed with various disorders which impacted on the child’s everyday life and the child’s ability to regulate emotions and behaviours. The child was very much loved and cared for by his devoted foster carers. 17. Due to the child’s diagnosis and the increase in behavioural and emotional outbursts, the foster carers found it increasingly difficult to manage the child. 18. The child was referred to the mental health services due to incidents of self-harm and, on occasion, the Gardaí were called to assist in managing the child’s emotional outbursts. Placement History: 19. Unfortunately, after a period of 14 years, the child had to be moved from the foster placement due to serious concerns for the foster carers’ safety and that of the other children in the home. 20. The child then moved to a residential placement. While he continued to attend school, he understandably found the transition to the new placement difficult. 21. The child remained in the residential placement for approximately eight months. However, that placement ended following an incident with another young person. 22. He was then moved to a short-term Special Emergency Arrangement as a respite placement for four weeks. 23. A new residential placement was then identified with a care provider who had expertise in therapeutic services for young people with complex behavioural and emotional needs. 24. This placement was located outside of Dublin. Despite the placement’s expertise in providing a multi-disciplinary approach to the child’s care, he struggled from the outset to settle into the placement. 25. The child remained in this placement for approximately five months and following an escalation in his behaviour, which included property damage to cars and some serious threats to staff, the placement came to an end. 26. He was then placed in two different SEAs in the Dublin area. The first arrangement lasted less than a month, where he engaged in drug use, caused damage to property, threatened staff, and went missing in care. 27. At this time, while in one of the SEAs, he engaged in self-harm and was subsequently reviewed by mental health services. Several referrals to special care were made at this time but he was deemed not to meet the criteria. 28. He then moved to respite emergency placement outside of Dublin for a few weeks before moving to a short-term residential placement where he seemed settled and stable for a time. 29. This was followed by a move to another unit where he settled initially, but his mental health began to deteriorate resulting in him being admitted for treatment and an assessment was carried out under the Mental Health Act 2001. 30. Following his discharge, he went back to his previous residential unit where he remained for a period of approximately eight months. 31. That placement broke down and he was then moved to a SEA in Dublin before moving to another SEA outside of Dublin, where he currently remains to date. 32. As outlined above, the child has had 11 placement moves since his foster placement broke down in 2022. Child’s Presentation: 33. The child has a complex presentation and has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”). 34. In addition, he has been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, along with severe emotional and behavioural regulation difficulties. 35. The child has a lifelong neurological condition associated with prenatal alcohol exposure and developed significant needs with a complex neurodevelopmental profile, including sensory difficulties relating to trauma. 36. The combination of these difficulties severely undermines his ability to regulate his emotions, his behaviour and his attention, which impacts on all areas of his capacity and functioning. 37. The child will require lifelong access to co-ordinated multidisciplinary supports and services to help him to live and function as he matures into adult life. 38. He has been engaged with numerous services over the years due to his complex presentation. Current Position: 39. The child has been placed in a SEA since early February, which is his fifth SEA placement since his long-term foster placement broke down in late 2022. 40. In reports prepared for the Court’s review, the Guardian ad Litem has highlighted that “this is a totally unsuitable placement for a child with immense complex needs and who is very traumatised”. 41. The Guardian ad Litem goes onto say that “the child is completely lost, alone and frightened”. 42. These fears are being demonstrated in his regular episodes of self-harming, blanking out, presenting as terrified and fearful and consistently asking for help. 43. There are increased concerns around his active substance misuse, and the fact that he is missing from care almost daily. 44. The child is not attending school and has told the Guardian ad Litem that he sees “very little hope for himself and is becoming less certain about his future”. 45. The child has told the Guardian ad Litem that all he wants is to be “in a safe place and to feel secure and cared for”. 46. The Child and Family Agency (“the Agency”) have acknowledged that the current placement is not a suitable placement for this child and that they are seeking an alternative placement. 47. The Agency’s national placement team have referred this child to numerous providers, but as of yet, no suitable residential placement has been identified. 48. The Agency outlines that the child is attending several services and the HSE indicated the child is currently undergoing a capacity assessment. Conclusion: 49. The Court has previously outlined that it is important, and in the interests of children in care, that there is a written record of the Court’s serious reservations and concerns regarding children being placed in unsuitable and unsafe SEA placements. 50. This case is another example of a child in care who is currently placed in an unregistered and unregulated placement. 51. This child’s circumstances and presentation which have been highlighted to the Court over the past few weeks are distressing and deeply troubling. 52. It is shocking to believe that a child who has been in care since birth, with such a complex and high level of need, can be placed in an unregistered and unregulated placement and that the Agency can stand over this appalling situation. 53. The Court has acknowledged the challenges the Agency has faced in dealing with an increased demand for placements across the Child Protection System, but the continuing use of SEA’s is a national scandal. 54. This highly vulnerable child in care is being failed, and this should never be acceptable or allowed to happen. 55. The Court has directed the Agency to find a suitable and appropriate placement for this child four weeks ago. Unfortunately, that court direction has not yet been complied with. 56. This case will remain under regular review, and the Court will endeavour to ensure that this child’s needs will be met and that a suitable residential placement is identified as soon as possible. 57. In terms of any reporting of this case nothing is to be reported or broadcast which would lead members of the public to identify the child or any of the parties involved in the Child Care proceedings as stipulated by the Courts and Civil Law Act. Conor Fottrell. Judge of the District Court. 11th March 2026.