Separated father restrained from communicating with social workers

THREE SOCIAL workers who expressed fears for their safety due to threats and abuse from a separated father after his three children were placed in foster care, have secured a High Court order restraining the man from communicating with them.

The social workers sought the order after the man made threats, referred to one or more of them as “bitch” and “whore” and was abusive in communications to themselves, members of their families and others. The HSE believed the man sent one social worker a text message in October 2008 using her name and the words “Stop Now, First Warning”. The man had denied sending the message.

Mr Justice Michael Hanna said yesterday he accepted the man was feeling enormous pain over the break-up of his family, but this did not entitle him to engage in “threatening behaviour and exceptionally uncivilised nasty commentary” regarding the social workers.

It was correct to say most of the problems centred on 2005 when the HSE was actively involved with the man and his family, he said.

The social workers behaved responsibly at that stage in not rushing to court, and things appeared to have quietened down until last year when matters came to a head with “most unpleasant” comments and “a clear threat” by the man to one social worker.

While no threat was made to the other two social workers, the judge believed they were correct in fearing the issue might be arising again. There was “no justification” for the aggressive behaviour, as the man’s children were in care on foot of court orders.

The man was not entitled to take it on himself to write “disgusting” e-mails to one social worker. Such conduct could not be tolerated. Having found the social workers had made out a fair issue to be tried, that damages would not be an adequate remedy and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the order, the judge made the order, which continues pending the outcome of full court proceedings.

The order restrains the man from corresponding with social workers involved in the care of his children, and directs that he may correspond only with one named principal social worker.

The man’s children were taken into HSE care in 2005 with the consent of their mother, who became severely disabled in 2001 as a result of a stroke.

Last November, the court was told foster parents who were caring for all three children had declined to keep them after receiving threats from the man.

Alternative foster care was arranged, but it is understood there is concern that a foster arrangement involving all three children remaining together may not be secured.

In affidavits, social workers said they became concerned from 2003 about the man’s parenting skills and relationship and referred to incidents where the man was allegedly physically and psychologically abusive to his wife, locked his children in their rooms and slapped one girl so hard as to cause bruising. His wife had later secured a barring order.