The District Court granted the Child and Family Agency (CFA), also identified in the judgment as Tusla, a care order for Child C until April 2031, when the child is due to reach the age of majority. The written judgment is dated 17 October 2014 and concerns an application under section 18(1) of the Child Care Act 1991.
The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that Child C’s health, development or welfare was likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected if returned to either parent, and that the child required care or protection unlikely to be provided without an order. The judge said the mother had not demonstrated the capacity to acquire the parenting skills needed. The father was found capable of playing a significant role in the child’s life, but the concerns raised about his circumstances and parenting capacity weighed against him assuming a major parenting role at that time.
The application followed emergency and interim care orders made after Child C’s birth in April 2013. The child had remained in a CFA foster placement. The judgment records evidence from medical, psychological and social work witnesses, as well as the report of a clinical psychologist admitted into evidence. The mother opposed the application, denied harming Child C in hospital and asked for the earlier plan for her to live with the baby in a supported residential placement to be reinstated. She told the court she was living in homeless accommodation. The father did not give direct evidence and supported the CFA’s application.
The judge considered the order’s duration and concluded that care until age 18 was proportionate, citing the child’s young age and vulnerability, the assessed risks and the absence of a real possibility of reunification with the mother. The judgment acknowledged that the order could adversely affect the child’s natural bond with the parents.
The CFA was directed to facilitate reasonable access for both parents under section 37. Under section 47, the case must be brought back before the court, on notice to the parents and the guardian ad litem, if specified circumstances arise, including a placement breakdown or proposed change, a six-week period without an allocated social worker or fostering link worker, or failure to comply with statutory care-planning regulations. The court also directed a review in October 2015 and set out future after-care planning and review dates for 2029 and 2030.