A JUDGE HAS criticised the Child and Family Agency for failing to have out-of-hours procedures in place.

In a sitting of the High Court yesterday, Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh told the Agency’s legal representatives that it had put the court in a “difficult position” over the weekend.

He was referring to a case where a young child was taken off its mother and placed in the care of its father and grandmother, neither of whom were the child’s guardian.

When the case was brought before the court on Saturday, the social worker who had made the decision was not available to explain the process. He was also unavailable to the mother’s legal team during a phone call on Friday.

The judge was asked to decide on an Article 40 application about whether the detention of the child was lawful. Yesterday, the Agency’s counsel said it was not attempting to stand over the lawfulness of the detention as the facts may not stand up to such a claim.

The court heard that the Agency needs to clarify what conversations were held on Friday afternoon to ascertain whether consent was given by the mother for the child to stay with its father and grandmother.

Following the hearing on Saturday and an assessment on Sunday, the child was returned to its mother.

The Agency says it now has no concerns about the welfare of the child.

The decision had initially been taken to place the child with the father and grandmother following allegations that the child had been “inadvertently injured” by the mother during altercations between the parents.

On Friday, both the mother and father had attended a garda station in their locality and the situation was described as “fraught”. The Child and Family Agency were made aware of the issues and the allegations, which at that point, were deemed to be a matter of concern.

During an initial meeting, the father maintained his allegations, while the mother fully denied them.

“In those circumstances, the social worker decided on a practical solution for the weekend because it was not possible to make a determination,” legal counsel for the Child and Family Agency told the Court.

He said that the social worker was familiar with the father’s mother, and therefore believed he was ensuring the child was in the care of an “absolutely safe and responsible person”.

It was with that reasoning he believed it was the “best way to get to Monday” when a determination on the allegations could be made.

However, the Agency also “accepted as a shortcoming” that an opportunity wasn’t taken on Friday afternoon to resolve the situation.

Justice Mac Eochaidh told the court that he was “surprised” there was no handle on out-of-hour procedures.

The social worker was unavailable and it “left the court guessing”, he said, adding that he had “no idea” why certain actions were taken by the Agency.

The Agency’s legal counsel said he would deliver that “clear message” that there should be “procedures in place that a court can find out what is happening outside of hours…and that there is a proper line of communications”.

The judge also advised the parents to do their best “to be good to each other and their baby”.

The Agency settled for the mother’s legal costs and costs for an interpreter.

The family will return to the District Court later this year when the father will seek full custody and to be made guardian. The Agency said it does not want to get involved in family court proceedings.