About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] IEDC 3
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  District Court
• Judge:
  Judge Conor Fottrell

Delivering his decision for the District Court last week, Judge Conor Fottrell emphasised: “This is an alarming and unprecedented situation where the agency with statutory responsibility for child protection has failed to comply with care orders on such a widespread level.”

Background

In January 2024, the District Court became aware that the Child and Family Agency (CFA) had failed to comply with court directions made in a care order by failing to re-enter the case when the child in question became unallocated to a social worker for more than four weeks.

Having made further enquiries, the court was informed by the CFA in April/May 2024 that approximately 250 children where in the same position and that the CFA had failed to re-enter their cases.

The District Court brought each case back before the court for review and on 3 July 2024, directed the CFA to conduct a full review of all children currently under care orders granted by the court to identify any further directions that had not been complied with.

A final report dated 9 June 2025 was submitted thereafter, and the CEO of the CFA, Kate Duggan, attended court on 12 June 2025 at Judge Fottrell’s request to give evidence in relation to same.

The court thereafter delivered a decision providing an update on developments since its last decision of 11 March 2025. 

The District Court

Judge Fottrell was informed that as of the date of completion of the report, 1,052 children were currently under care orders granted over the last 15 years by the District Court. Breaches were identified in relation to 471 children, with a total of 859 court directions not having been complied with by the CFA.

The court set out the directions breached by the CFA as identified in its review, including that:

• 395 children under care orders did not have an allocated social worker for more than four weeks;
• 245 children did not have a child-in-care review take place within the statutory timeframe;
• 92 children did not have their foster placement long-term matched as per the timeframe directed by the court;
• 79 children were placed with foster carers who did not have an allocated fostering link worker to the foster care placement for a period of more than four weeks;
• 12 children did not have a statutory visit from a social worker;
• 10 children did not receive a specific assessment or service provided as directed by the court;
• 7 children did not have their cases re-entered before the court for review on the date directed by the court in the care order;
• 6 children did not have an allocated aftercare worker, and their cases were not re-entered before the court for an aftercare review;
• 3 children did not have the court-directed access schedule or access support in place;
• 3 children had a change of placement without having the case re-entered before the court to update the court on the change of placement;
• 3 breaches were in relation to providing parents with an update or parental support;
• 4 breaches are identified as “other”; and
• 87 cases have yet to be re-entered back into the court.

Judge Fottrell considered the evidence of Ms Duggan, noting that in circumstances where she was initially made aware of the issue in relation to the re-entering of cases back into court in December 2022, “the court is unclear as to why there appears to have been no follow up with or by the CEO after the RCO’s meeting in January 2023 and why it appears the CEO was not kept fully updated on the scale of the issue throughout 2023 and into 2024”.

The court highlighted the CEO’s acceptance that the CFA did not re-enter the cases despite being aware of the non-compliance with court directions and that the CFA’s systems were not fit for purpose in terms of the recording, managing and monitoring of court orders.

The CEO informed the court that she had commissioned an external review of the situation and apologised to the Court, to the children affected and to their parents for the CFA’s failure to comply with the care orders.

Judge Fottrell found that many of the 471 children identified in the CFA review had multiple directions included in their care order not complied with by the CFA and considered that: “The agency’s failure to re-enter each one of these cases as directed means the court, the child’s parents and their guardian ad litem were not aware of any of this until the court enquiry began last year and the further updated information was provided last week.”

The judge noted that the review had established that senior management in the CFA at local, regional and national level, including the current CEO, were aware back in December 2022 that there was an issue in relation to a delay in re-entering cases back into court, but that this failure only came to light following the court’s enquiries in 2024.

In this regard, the court emphasised that the District Court is a court of local and limited jurisdiction and that the integrity of the Court process and the rule of law must be upheld.

Finding that the CFA had failed in its statutory duty to each of the 471 children involved and emphasising that the scale and widespread failure to comply with care orders relating to vulnerable children was “shocking and appalling”, Judge Fottrell confirmed that the court’s enquiry was now at an end and that “regrettably, the trust in the agency is broken and their reputation before the court is damaged”.

Conclusion

The District Court determined that each case would remain under review before it to ensure that each child’s needs are being met, with parents notified where possible and a guardian ad litem re-appointed.

In the matter of the Childcare Act 1991 [2025] IEDC 3