Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, withdrew legal proceedings to have two young children, allegedly at risk of sexual abuse, taken into care because they were "too toxic" and "costing too much", the High Court has been told.
The children's foster parents say the children would be exposed to unacceptable risks if they were returned to live with their natural parents.
The foster parents have taken High Court proceedings to have the children made wards of court.
Their application is being opposed by the agency who say the court has no jurisdiction to make such an order as the foster parents had other legal remedies open to them.
Earlier this year, in what were described as "extraordinary" proceedings, Tusla withdrew a district court application for a care order for the two young children after 29 days of hearing.
The case had not finished and the district court judge said he could not make any order as a result.
The foster parents claim they were told by a social worker that the decision to stop the care proceedings had been made at management level in the agency because they were "too toxic" and "costing too much".
The High Court heard the social worker says she cannot recall saying that.
The foster parents say they were also told the court proceedings were not likely to reach a conclusion.
The agency subsequently made a decision that the children should be reunited to live with their natural parents at the end of August. That decision has been put on hold pending the outcome of these proceedings.
The agency accepted in court that there had been no strategy meeting between the agency and the gardaí before that decision was made.
And the agency said it accepted the gardaí had a negative view of such a reunification.
Lawyers for the foster parents say they believe an assessment and inquiry has to be carried out by some court, into the serious issues raised, before the children can be returned to their natural parents.
The court heard the children were taken into care against a background of substance abuse, mental health issues, domestic violence and neglect.
The foster carers observed sexualised behaviour on the part of the two children.
Two older children were already in foster care after making allegations of abuse against a relation. A criminal investigation is underway in relation to that matter.
The older children later alleged that they had also been abused by their parents and the oldest child said in interviews that the parents had also sexually abused the younger children.
The court heard the oldest child had retracted some allegations.
Senior Counsel Rosario Boyle, on behalf of the foster parents, said in early July, the agency was of the opinion that the children had been exposed to harmful behaviour, classed as sexual abuse.
But by the end of July the agency had decided the family would be reunited on 23 August, without any evidence that matters raised in a risk assessment had been addressed.
Ms Boyle said the children's allegations may not be accurate, but without any proper inquiry into them, the children would be exposed to an unacceptable level of risk.
Senior Counsel, Gerry Durkan representing the interests of the children, said this was an unusual case.
He said that at least one respected expert in the district court was of the view that what the older children had told the gardaí was credible to some degree.
He said the gardaí were expressing significant concern at the concept of the children being returned to their parents and he said his client - the court appointed guardian representing the children's interests - also had very considerable concerns.
He said the proceedings in the district court were extraordinary and were characterised by the Child and Family Agency seeking adjournments.
Mr Durkan said the guardian was at a loss to understand why the agency acted in the way it did and found the approach of the agency to an inquiry into the children's welfare extraordinary.
He said there were no case notes on the file to explain why the agency had decided to seek the reunification of the family and the agency had said the minutes of the meeting at which the decision was made were privileged.
Mr Durkan said it was a fundamentally flawed process in so far as the protection of these children was concerned.
He told Ms Justice Marie Baker that she had a duty to protect the children and there was no limit to her jurisdiction - she had the power to do whatever was necessary to protect them.
The hearing will resume in a week. Ms Justice Baker must decide if she can or should direct that the children be made wards of court.
