Dublin couple could face jail after son (13) misses four years of school
A Dublin couple are facing prosecution and have been warned they could be jailed after a court heard their 13-year-old child has not been in school in four years.
The man and woman initially faced prosecution at Dublin District Court after their elder son, who is in his mid-teens, failed to return to school from September 2014 to May 2015. However, he went back school in September last year but additional charges were brought in relation to their younger son's education.
The prosecution has been brought by the Republic's Child and Family Agency (CFA). The married couple could be fined up to €1,000 and jailed for a month if convicted of breaking the Education (Welfare) Act for not complying with an official warnings about school attendance.
Dorothy Ware, solicitor for the CFA told Judge O'Neill heard the 13-year-old has been out of school for the past four years. The parents say the child is too ill to attend but they would not allow the CFA permission to verify this with their doctor. Initially they had signed consent forms but later withdrew their consent, she said.
A social worker's report was also handed in to the judge.
“You are running out of time, I have little options open to me, I could decide to send you both to jail and your kids could be sent into care,” he warned the parents. He also said welfare report furnished to him showed the mother had been “totally uncooperative”.
The mother claimed her child had a medical condition and had been traumatised and “we have been downtrodden”. She denied she and her husband had failed to provide medical information to the CFA claiming they themselves were waiting to obtain medical reports.
Her husband also claimed they were waiting to get the medical reports on their son but “we have been given the runaround”.
The woman repeatedly said the CFA were telling lies as well as claiming she and her husband been slandered and she threatened she would go to the gardai. The boy was present for the hearing but did not address the court. It was the sixth date the matter was before the court.
Judge O'Neill ordered that their hearing would take place in March and warned them it was imperative they get the medical reports.
He said that if the court was aware of the boy's condition it could understand their side of the story and he stressed to them that medical reports would be to their advantage.
The prosecution solicitor asked if they would now agree to sign a consent form to let the CFA to contact their doctor and the judge told the couple they had to co-operate. “It is the system that is not co-operating with me,” the boy's mother replied in a raised voice.
The judge then addressed the father to tell him the date of their hearing. “I'll see if I can do about getting off work,” the man replied.