The District Court made a care order for Child 4 until her 18th birthday, finding that the statutory threshold under section 18(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Child Care Act 1991 was met. The court said her health, development and welfare would suffer if the order were not made.
The application was heard on 24 October 2012. Child 4 had been in the Health Service Executive’s care since an interim care order was made on 17 November 2011, with that interim order extended nine times. The mother attended, was legally represented and consented to the care order, while expressing the aim of having Child 4 returned to her care. The father did not attend; his solicitor was present. The court said both parents had been properly served and allowed the hearing to proceed.
The court heard evidence from two social workers and the child’s Guardian Ad Litem (GAL), and considered reports and the filed care plan. The mother’s history included neglect of her older children, ongoing drug and alcohol difficulties, mental health problems, accommodation difficulties and experience of domestic violence. The court also cited the father’s history of neglect involving his older child, aggression and domestic violence, and limited engagement with support services. These were the court’s stated reasons for finding an order proportionate, alongside its conclusion that the parents had not shown the ability or commitment to provide consistent care and that change was not foreseeable.
The social workers’ evidence described continuing concerns about addiction, mental health and violence. They also told the court that Child 4 was doing well with her foster family, was healthy and meeting developmental milestones. The GAL supported a full-duration care order and recommended that the current placement continue as the long-term placement. The judgment records that the mother consented; it does not say the father consented.
The court approved the filed care plan and proposed foster placement and ordered access between Child 4 and her parents under section 37. It directed a review of progress in care for 23 October 2013 and an after-care review on Child 4’s 17th birthday. The dates for her 18th birthday and 17th birthday appear as placeholders in the source. The court discharged the GAL, with costs payable by the HSE, and directed that the GAL be reappointed four weeks before re-entry if a social worker or fostering link worker remained unallocated for six weeks, or if the foster placement changed. The GAL was also to be reappointed four weeks before the specified review dates.