The Gazette 1980

GAZETTE

SEPTEMBER 1980

home. Such powers are given under some other Acts to assist authorised persons in the enforcement of those Acts so it would be reasonable to provide powers under which social workers can get access to homes where that seems necessary. A power already exists in section 24(3) of the 1908 Act in favour of a constable but that makes it a police matter. While that can be a very useful display of authority in some types of cases, it would be helpful if social workers could also have a right of entry which could be exercised on a more low-key basis. I would like to see provision also being made for a warrant to remove a child to a place of safety (pending being brought before the court) issuing directly to a social worker rather than a Garda. That would be a more realistic acceptance of the reality of the situation. Technically speaking, the present wording of the 1908 Act requires the Garda executing the warrant to take and detain the child himself in an appropriate place of safety. In working practice the child is immediately given to the social worker concerned who arranges to have the child looked after pending the hearing of the summons. I would also like to see provision made for a warrant being issued by any Justice without his being tied down to territorial limits of jurisdiction. Section 24 requires the warrant to be issued by the Justice for the area within which an assault, ill-treatment or neglect of a child has taken place. Thus if the parents and child have moved out of one area in respect of which the proof of assault, Ill- treatment or neglect exists and move into another area, there could be difficulty if there is no evidence of a continuance of the assault, ill-treatment or neglect in that second area. One has to go back to the Justice of the first area. Again, I would like to see provision whereby a warrant can be obtained from a Peace Commissioner if no Court is sitting at which an application can readily be made. Some of my most worrying cases have come late on a Friday afternoon at the beginning of a holiday week-end. There was a a scramble trying to get an information drawn up and get to the court with the informant in time before the court rose. On one or two occasions we were too late so we were left with a great deal of anxiety about the safety of the child over the weekend. The interests of the child The present legal necessity to have the children physically present in court when Fit Person Orders are being sought in respect of them serves no useful purpose if they are so young as to be incapable of comprehending the proceedings. If they can comprehend the proceedings they will hear distressing evidence being given against their parents. It would be reasonable, therefore, to remove the present necessity for their presence in court and leave it to the court to require the presence of the child in any particular case if the court needed to see or hear the child. I am by no means suggesting that the interests of pnrents should be readily sacrificed by an over- simplification of procedure. But we are dealing with children at risk so, on balance, I feel that the safety of the child should always be the paramount consideration. The fairly large number of cases I have dealt with by now has clearly demonstrated to me that social workers do not readily rush in and try to take children away from homes. On the contrary, where possible, every effort is

made to work with the parents so as to eliminate whatever risks to the child there may be. I know that, save in a matter of great urgency, the social workers immediately concerned will consult with superiors. Very often decisions to seek Fit Person Orders are taken at a case conference with a number of interested parties sitting in on it. Deciding when and how to act In the Eastern Health Board there is a very satisfactory system of delegation in operation whereby social workers can come directly to me to discuss problem cases and, if necessary, to ask me to take action. This saves a great deal of time that would otherwise be lost if instructions had to be channelled to me through some administrative pipeline. I have general authority to use my own discretion and to institute proceedings without getting more formal instructions from some administrative level if I consider the facts of the case warrant its being done. But I report action taken afterwards and will particularly look first for instructions where I consider them necessary to deal with any unusual features in a case. I myself act as a kind of filter and will not institute proceedings unless I am satisfied that they are justified by the facts of the case and have a reasonable prospect of succeeding. This last mentioned point in a very material one. I feel it could leave a child in serious danger to bring proceedings and be totally unsuccessful in them. The parents might then feel they were beyond the reach of the law and could do what they liked with the child. I hope this paper may serve to stimulate further interest in what has become a very important subject.

Appendix I Incidence of Non-Accidental Injury to Children, 1 April 1977 to 31 December 1978

Board

No. reported No. confirmed

86 17 62

28 17 10

Eastern Midland

Mid Western North Eastern North Western South Eastern

8

2

—

—

37 23 10

12 23

Southern Western

6

243

98

Total

This article first appeared in ADMI N I STRAT I ON, Vol. 27, No. 4, and is reprinted here with kind permission of the Institute of Public Administration of Ireland.

157