The District Court granted a three-year care order for Child S, running until September 2017, after finding that neither parent could provide care at the time of the hearing. The order followed the parents’ agreement that the legal threshold for care was met; the dispute was about how long the order should last.
The Child and Family Agency had sought an order lasting until Child S turned 18. The mother consented to that duration, or a shorter period if the court chose. The father accepted that he could not care for Child S at the time but argued that three years was proportionate, citing his intention to enter residential drug treatment and the possibility of reunification.
The judgment says Child S had been in the care of the state since April 2013 and placed with a grand aunt and her husband. The child had been treated for serious drug withdrawal symptoms after birth. The court noted the father had attended access visits consistently since April 2014, while the mother’s attendance had been sporadic. It also recorded concerns about both parents’ ongoing drug use and the mother’s engagement with assessment and support.
The judge found, on the balance of probabilities, that the mother had tampered with drug-testing samples, which she denied. Evidence about the father’s likely progress in treatment differed: one clinician was more hopeful than another. The judge said it was impossible to predict with certainty whether the father would succeed in treatment.
The court also considered the father’s objections about fair procedures and proportionality. It was satisfied that he had received fair procedures, noting that his identity became known to the agency after a November 2013 care review and that he participated in a review after paternity was confirmed in April 2014. The judge found no undue delay in the DNA test.
In choosing three years, the court cited Child S’s young age, the stable kinship placement, the father’s access and apparent motivation to address addiction, and the mother’s past success in managing addiction and mental-health difficulties. The judge said the court could extend the order if circumstances required. The order does not return Child S to either parent.
Access is to be in accordance with section 37 of the Child Care Act 1991. The case is to return to court in September 2016 to review the parents’ progress, engagement with supports, possible parenting-capacity assessments and the needs of Child S and the carers. The court also directed an earlier return in specified circumstances, including a six-week period without an allocated social worker or fostering link worker, non-compliance with care-planning regulations, or a planned or unplanned placement change. The guardian ad litem was discharged and is to be reappointed six weeks before the review.