The District Court made care orders for two children until each reaches 18, finding they had been neglected and their health, development or welfare avoidably impaired. The court also directed Tusla to return the case to court to report on the progress of analysis of disclosures by the children.
The published judgment, identified as [2016] IEDC 08, records that the children had been in interim care since an order made in summer 2015. Tusla sought care orders under section 18(1) of the Child Care Act 1991. The mother was not in court during the two-day hearing; her solicitor and advocate attended. Her legal team had no instructions from her, and no reply to Tusla’s statement of facts was filed. The judge held Tusla to proof of its allegations.
The judge admitted statements the children had made to a social care key worker, the Guardian ad Litem and a social work team leader under the hearsay provisions of the Children Act 1997. She excluded a note of a statement by one child that had been given in evidence by a social care worker, finding it had not been made directly to that worker. The professionals who received the admitted statements were available for cross-examination, the judge said.
The judgment recounts evidence of longstanding neglect, including unmet medical and dental needs, inadequate food and clothing, poor supervision and exposure to adult conflict. The judge found the children needed care and protection and were unlikely to receive it unless the court made an order. She concluded there was little prospect that returning them to their mother, even with substantial support, would serve their best interests.
The judge made no finding about sexual abuse. She said issues relating to sexual abuse were under investigation, but no evidence on that issue had been presented at the hearing. One child had told the Guardian ad Litem that the mother’s current partner had hurt them; the judgment says that disclosure was being investigated by Tusla and An Garda Síochána.
Both children wished to remain with their foster carer, while expressing love and concern for their mother and enjoying contact with her. The judge directed Tusla to regulate the mother’s access and provide supports to help her participate meaningfully. She adjourned a final direction under section 47 to allow discussion of remediation services and further work on the care plan and foster placement. The Guardian ad Litem had raised concerns about the placement’s cultural appropriateness, while supporting it as the children’s long-term placement. The judge also recorded that Tusla had agreed to an independent review of the case file.