The District Court declined the Health Service Executive’s application for interim care orders for four children, finding that it could not conclude that the risk of leaving them at home during a proposed support programme outweighed the risk of placing them in care.
The HSE brought the application under section 17 of the Child Care Act 1991. Both parents opposed it. After hearing evidence over seven dates in late 2012 and early 2013, the court found that the statutory threshold had been met: there was reasonable cause to believe that circumstances under section 18(1)(b) and (c) existed or had existed in respect of each child.
The judge made findings concerning the condition of the family’s former and current homes, physical altercations between the mother and one child, safety in the home and inadequate childminding arrangements. The judge also considered the children’s routines and education. The court found the former home’s conditions unacceptable and said deterioration in the current home was likely. It found that the mother had not appropriately managed conflict and that children had been left alone, including an acknowledged incident in which the infant left the home and was found on the street.
The judge said the evidence established reasonable cause to believe the children’s health, development or welfare had been avoidably impaired or neglected and was likely to be impaired or neglected. The court also recorded that the children wanted to remain at home, while recognising risks both in leaving them there and in placing them in care.
The HSE proposed referring the mother to an identified intellectual disability service for an assessment and support intended to develop her parenting capacity, with reunification as the aim. The judge said the case would justify an interim care order on the evidence apart from the question of the mother’s intellectual disability. However, the judge could not determine that the children faced greater risk at home while the proposed programme was underway than they would in care.
The judge proposed adjourning the application, with the children remaining at home under a supervision order by consent while the service worked with the mother. The parties could not agree. The judge then finalised the application and declined the interim care order because the risk comparison could not be resolved in favour of removing the children from home.
The court discharged the guardian ad litem and made an order for costs. The judge stressed that the end of the proceedings did not mean the HSE’s concerns had disappeared or were illegitimate.