163 / 270
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
Eastern
86
28
Midland
17
17
Mid Western
62
10
North Eastern
8
2
North Western
—
—
South Eastern
37
12
Southern
23
23
Western
10
6
Total
243
98
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