A legal case aimed at keeping two children in care amid allegations of sexual abuse was withdrawn by the Child and Family Agency because it was "too toxic and cost too much", the High Court heard.
In an application by foster carers to make the two children wards of court, counsel for the foster carers also said gardaí investigating the case were not made aware of a proposal to reunite the children with their parents and were concerned about it.
On Thursday, Rosario Boyle SC said social workers told the foster carers that the child care case was also withdrawn because the agency believed the proceedings were not going to reach a conclusion.
She said this was an “extraordinary view to take” in circumstances when a District Court judge had already heard 29 days of evidence and was to hear further days.
The two children were taken into care in March 2012 following concerns about substance abuse, domestic violence and neglect, Ms Boyle said.
The foster carers observed sexualised behaviour in the children, and their two older siblings, with different foster carers, made allegations of sexual abuse against an uncle.
After 18 months, the two younger children were reunited with their parents, because the family living conditions had improved, Ms Boyle said.
The older siblings then made allegations of sexual abuse against their parents and said the parents had also abused the younger children. The parents denied the allegations.
The children were returned to the foster carers in April 2014 and a temporary care order was made for them. Earlier this year, a full care order hearing began, to keep them in care until the age of 18. It lasted 29 days, until the agency withdrew the application.
The District Court judge said he did not have the power to continue with the inquiry and could not make any findings.
Ms Boyle said, at a meeting in July, her clients were told the case was withdrawn because it was “too toxic” and costly. They had no alternative but to come to court to protect the children.
The children were due to be reunited with their parents on August 25th, when the foster carers took action at the High Court. A temporary order was then made keeping the children in care pending a hearing.
Ms Boyle said there was a serious issue about the capacity of the parents to parent. Ms Boyle said none of the allegations made may be true or accurate, but in the absence of a proper inquiry, the children should not be returned to their parents.
Gerard Durcan SC, for the children’s court-appointed guardian, said his client had very significant concerns about the children going back to their parents. She was at a loss to understand why the agency acted in the way it did.
Mr Durcan highlighted children’s rights under the Constitution, and said their best interests should be paramount. He said the existence of the Childcare Act 1991, under which children are taken into care, did not mean the High Court could not use its ward of court powers, under the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961.
“There is a duty that now falls on the High Court - to exercise the power to protect the afflicted, the people who cannot protect themselves,” Mr Durcan said. He said the court could do whatever was necessary to protect the children.
Ms Justice Marie Baker said she would have to decide whether the High Court had jurisdiction to deal with the case, the scope of the jurisdiction or whether there were other remedies.
The agency and both parents are opposing the foster carers’ application. They will make their submissions to court next week when the case resumes.
