Unaccompanied minor taken into care at airport

As of end July 2024, there were 144 unaccompanied minors in the care of the Child and Family Agency (CFA), the Child Law Project reports with a larger cohort being provided with accommodation under section 5 of the Child Care Act 1991.

During 2023, 530 referrals were made to the CFA service for separated children seeking international protection, 32 of whom were admitted into care or accommodated by the service. 

A third of the referrals were from the Ukraine with the remainder from about 30 different countries.

Separated minor

In the Child Law Project (CLP) case reports, 24 concern an unaccompanied or separated minor with seven from African countries, three from Afghanistan and two from Ukraine.

Their reason for fleeing their country of origin was mentioned in 10 reports.

Four girls were fleeing forced marriages (including to a member of an Islamic militant group), two were trafficked, and four were fleeing war, one fled the Taliban and another was being forced to join a militia.

The CLP report said that the impact of the lack of clarity on how the CFA provides care to these children was apparent in two cases.

Criticised

In one, the judge heavily criticised the CFA for an unjustifiable delay in bringing an application for an interim care order for an unaccompanied minor from Africa.

In another, an application was brought to ask the court to direct the CFA to make an aftercare plan for a teenager from the Ukraine.

This application was unsuccessful as the child was not in care but rather being provided with accommodation under section 5 and so the judge did not have jurisdiction.

CLP  reports included at least nine cases where a child was a suspected victim of trafficking or exploitation.

One of these involved a teenager from Ukraine who arrived in Ireland in the company of a man whom she knew but who was not a relation.

The girl was interviewed by social workers at the airport who were concerned about the situation and she was subsequently taken into care under an emergency care order.

Neglect

There was a concern that the child, who may have had an intellectual disability, might have suffered neglect and been groomed in her home country. 

In a second case, adults travelling with children were detained when entering the country as the gardai was not satisfied that the adults were the parents of the child or had appropriate permission to travel with the children giving rise to the possibility of trafficking.

In a third case it was suspected that the child in care was a victim of trafficking. The court directed that no information should be given to anyone about the child, including her location, given the concerns for her safety.

There are a number of cases where the child was being sexually or criminally exploited and that the level of support in their current care placement was not sufficient to stabilise them and address these risks, the CLP states.

For some, as their case returned to court for review, the situation deteriorated and became very bleak, with staff scrambling to keep the child safe, the CLP said.

Rape allegation

In one case, it was alleged that a teenager, who had the cognitive ability of a 10-year-old, had been raped while in the care of the CFA.

There were also beliefs that the teenager was being sexually trafficked throughout the country.

Without bed

The case came back before the court on over ten occasions, but the girl was still without a special care bed. The judge said that he was lost for words that this was the third case before him with similar circumstances, but this was by far the worst case.

He said: “It beggars belief that in 2024 this would come before a court.”

Eventually the child was placed in a unit in Britain.

This case highlighted the lack of provision within the care system of a safe house for suspected victims of trafficking, the CLP said in the report.

An issue is that the child has freedom to leave their care placement at any time and has unfettered access to their phone and to the internet.

The only legal framework to deprive a child of their liberty or to impose restrictions on their access to telecommunications is under a special care order or under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, the CLP said.