Judge refuses care order for child despite alleged sexual abuse

A judge at Dublin District Family Court who found there was "reasonable cause to believe" a child had been sexually abused, has refused an application to have the child taken into care.

Judge Brendan Toale said he did not find the evidence was sufficient, "on the balance of probability" to support the allegation that the child's female relative carer had colluded in the alleged abuse of the child.

The abuse was allegedly carried out by a male relative carer of the child, and by the carer’s friend and other male relatives.

The judge noted the child was “bright, happy and comfortable” in the care of the female relative and there were “no risk-free decisions or orders a court can make”.

The judge made his ruling last week, and included an order preventing reporting of the case for seven days.

He also placed restrictions on some details of what could be reported, including the gender of the children involved.

The allegations of sexual abuse were made by a younger sibling, who had lived in the same home as the child, the court was told.

However, it also heard there was a six-week waiting list before the sibling’s allegations could be assessed for credibility and therapy at a specialist sexual abuse unit.

Child and Family Agency

And it also emerged that while one social work branch of the Child and Family Agency had concerns about the family at the centre of the case, another branch had placed a group of siblings with them for seven weeks.

The sibling who made allegations has already been in the care of the agency for almost two years, having been removed from home after repeatedly exhibiting highly concerning and unexplained sexualised behaviour at a creche. Both children were in the care of their relatives because their mother was unable to care for them due to drug misuse.

The sibling made no disclosures about sexual abuse until last month.

Giving evidence, the sibling’s foster mother said she picked up her charge at school last month and was told the sibling was disruptive in class and had been exhibiting sexualised behaviour. When she asked the sibling about the behaviour, the sibling began disclosing details of alleged abuse perpetrated by a male relative carer. Using childish terms for body parts, the sibling detailed what the male carer had done and what it was the sibling had to do. The sibling told the foster mother: “I’m good at it, that’s why it’s my job.”

The sibling alleged a female carer had caught her husband abusing the older child at the centre of the court case. The sibling contended the female carer had told her husband not to do it again. The sibling said the older child was crying and upset after the incident. The sibling also referred to other men who were sexually abusive, including the male carer’s friend and other relatives.

The foster mother told the court the sibling made further disclosures on another day while walking home from school. The sibling said there were “jobs nearly every day”. The sibling recounted how the male relative carer and his friend put their finger to their lips and crept upstairs to the children’s bedroom with the children.

The sibling talked about the pain involved, and said the female relative carer provided hugs and bought “green chocolate” afterwards.

The court heard the sibling said there were also boys who “came every day and they knocked on the door”, whom the female carer allowed in and who also were sexually abusive, the sibling said. The sibling was eating lunch when those disclosures were made, the foster mother told the court.

The sibling made a third disclosure a few days later, the foster mother said, while they were at home after school. The sibling spoke of travelling to an apartment,where the male carer’s friend lived.

“He was nice at the start, then he said: ‘Do you want sex in the toilet?’ I said: ‘Okay’,” the sibling told the foster mother. “He brought me in to the toilet and he hurt me.”

Whereabouts

Counsel for the relative carers accused the foster mother of asking the sibling some leading questions. Counsel raised concerns in particular about questions on the whereabouts of the female carer during the alleged abuse. The questions had been repeated after the sibling said, at first, the female carer was at the shops.

The foster mother said she had not tried to lead the sibling, and had tried her best. She had found the disclosures “hugely emotional and difficult”.

“You try to follow rules, but when this is related to you by a very small [child], it’s hard to take it in,” she said.

She said she had expected to see “tears or upset” during the disclosures, but the child was “calm and normal”.

The social worker told the judge that though the child at the centre of the case had been assessed at the time the younger sibling was taken into care, in 2014, there were no concerns. The older child did not exhibit sexualised or stressed behaviour. The family was co-operative with a safety plan for the older child, the social worker said, which included keeping visits to the home, by relatives and others, to a minimum.

The social worker said she contacted the family as soon as the first disclosure was made last month. She also contacted gardaí and referred the sibling who made the disclosures to a sexual abuse unit. At that stage the male relative carer agreed to move out of the family home.

It was not decided to apply to take the older child into care until the second disclosure was made by the sibling, the social worker said. This was because the female relative carer was “no longer viewed as a protective factor”.

“We felt there wasn’t any safe place,” she said.

Under cross-examination by counsel for the female relative carer, the social worker agreed that earlier this year, despite concerns, a group of young relatives was placed in temporary care with the couple by social workers from another area for more than seven weeks.

“We advised the other social work department of our concerns,” the social worker said.

“The “other” [social work department] is part of the Child and Family Agency,” the judge remarked.

The social worker also agreed the older child was afraid of social workers, having witnessed the younger sibling’s removal, and could find being taken into care traumatic.

Frightened

The older child’s court-appointed guardian said he believed his charge should be taken into care. He described the child as very bright and engaging and at ease with the female carer. But he said the child was “very uptight” and frightened when he raised the subjects of the younger sibling in care and the court case.

He said he believed there was a “serious risk” attached to the child remaining at home. He also said he believed the younger sibling’s disclosures were credible.

“It is almost unheard of for a child of [name]’s age to be able to say and do the things that were said and done and not to have been exposed to sexual abuse,” he said.

Of the female relative carer, he said it was very difficult for one person to be able to protect a child at home indefinitely.

The female relative carer also gave evidence, but was not questioned about any of the allegations the younger sibling had made. She said when she agreed to take in the group of young relatives earlier this year she genuinely thought the information about her circumstances “would be on a database or something”.

Two character references were handed into court on her behalf.

Giving his decision, the judge said the child the subject of the application had received excellent care from the female relative carer and had not exhibited any behavioural difficulties like those evident in the younger sibling. He said, referring to the questioning by the foster mother, he had to accord less weight to the sibling’s allegation that the female carer knew about the abuse and failed to protect the child from it.

Supervision order

The judge suggested the agency apply for a supervision order for the family. This would allow the agency to make visits to the home and put in place a safety plan that would include restrictions on contact with the alleged perpetrator.

After consultation, a solicitor for the agency said he would not be applying for a supervision order. The solicitor said a safety plan had been put in place with the family, which included an agreement that the alleged perpetrator would live outside the family home, at least until a child-protection conference later this month.