In the matter of Child A, decision No. 3 – Special Emergency Arrangement

Neutral Citation: [2026] IEDC 4 AN CHÚIRT DÚICHE THE DISTRICT COURT DUBLIN METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COURT THE CHILDCARE ACT 1991 SECTION 17 & SECTION 47 IN THE MATTER OF A (a child) THE CHILD AND FAMILY AGENCY Applicant -and- BB, CC & DD Respondents -and- EE Guardian ad Litem Decision No. 3 of Judge Conor Fottrell delivered on the 11th day of March 2026 Introduction: 1. The application is brought under section 17(2) of the Childcare Act 1991 (“the Act”) in relation to a child, aged 13 years. 2. The applicant in the case is the Child and Family Agency (“the Agency”) which is seeking an extension of an interim care order granted on 17 November 2025. 3. The case was last before the court on 4th of March, when the order was extended for one week. 4. The Guardian ad Litem brought an application under section 47 of the Act seeking a court direction for a suitable placement for the child. That application was granted on 18th of February by court order, directing the Agency to provide a suitable and appropriate registered placement to meet the needs of this child. 5. The respondents are the child’s father and the child’s maternal grandfather; although named as a respondent, the mother of the child is sadly deceased. 6. The respondents are referred to as BB, CC, DD & EE. The report of the decision has been anonymised to ensure that the rights of both the child, and the father and grandfather as litigants, in an in-camera hearing under the Act are protected. In this way, the public interest in favour of publication can be satisfied without any identification of any of the parties, while also complying with the requirements of the Act. 7. The respondent father and maternal grandfather attended court again today represented by solicitor and counsel. An advocate also attended court with the grandfather. 8. The child’s interests in the proceedings are represented by the court-appointed Guardian ad Litem. The Guardian ad Litem is represented by a solicitor. 9. This is the sixth time in one month the case has come before the Court, where the child is still missing from care, and where the placement option for the child remains a Special Emergency Arrangement (“SEA”). 10. This decision is an update to the court decisions published on the 18th and 26th of February, which sets out the child’s background and his family circumstances. Current Position: 11. The Court was updated today on the position of the child and unfortunately, he still remains missing in care. He has now been missing from his SEA placement since the 17th of February. He was also missing for a period of five days prior to this. 12. While the child has had some phone contact with his court-appointed Guardian ad Litem and social worker, he has not been seen in person by any professionals in nearly a month. 13. He has very clearly stated that he does not want to return to the SEA, and he is believed to be moving between various locations. 14. The Guardian ad Litem believes the child “remains an extremely vulnerable young person with a history of risk-taking behaviour, criminal association and substance misuse”. 15. All of these concerns are significantly heightened, given the fact that the child has been missing for over three weeks. 16. The Agency updated the Court that the residential placement which was indicated as a possible option for the child last week is no longer available. 17. The SEA remains the only placement option for this child, and this has been the Agency’s position since last November. Conclusion: 18. The circumstances outlined to the Court today remain extremely concerning. There has been no material change in the position over the past four weeks, with the case coming before the Court on six occasions during that time. 19. The situation is just shocking, with a vulnerable 13-year-old child still missing in care and the only placement option remains that of a SEA. 20. The child has not seen or met with a social worker or the court-appointed Guardian ad Litem since he went missing. 21. The court order made three weeks ago — that the Agency provide a suitable and appropriate registered residential placement — has not yet been complied with. 22. The child remains at a significant risk of harm and understandably his grandfather, father and wider family are very worried and distressed by this situation. 23. The immediate priority is for this child to be found safe and well. However, the Agency must comply with the court order to find an appropriate placement as a matter of urgency. 24. It simply beggars belief that a 13-year-old child in care can go missing for nearly a month and there has been absolutely no progress in finding him or providing him with a suitable registered residential placement. 25. The position of the Agency is completely unsatisfactory and unacceptable. 26. The Court extends the interim care order for one week only. 27. 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 of March 2026.