The District Court made a care order for Child B until 29 September 2029, the date specified in the order, after finding that the child’s bond with her mother was not yet secure. The judgment provides for a court review in December 2017 and a mention in June 2017 for the mother to seek a hearing on a possible application for family reunification.
The Child and Family Agency sought an order under section 18(1)(c) of the Child Care Act 1991 for the remainder of the child’s minority. The mother accepted that the threshold for a care order was met at that time but argued that, given her improving circumstances, an order for one further year would be proportionate. The Guardian ad Litem supported an order to age 18 with a court review after two years.
The judgment says Child B was removed from her mother’s care about four days after birth and remained in the same placement as two older siblings. The earlier care order for Child B expired on 5 April 2015; interim care orders remained in place until this hearing. The earlier findings, made in 2012, were accepted by all parties and were not disputed in this proceeding.
The court recorded that the mother had completed parenting courses, had remained off alcohol apart from one lapse, and was engaging with the Saol Project. She was also parenting another child full time. The judge found, however, that despite support, the mother had not prioritised attendance at access visits. Child B was described as settled in the placement and securely attached to the foster carers, while the bond with the mother was still developing and was not secure.
The court concluded that return to the mother’s care carried a likelihood of avoidable impairment or neglect and that a care order was a proportionate response. It directed that family reunification be considered at statutory care reviews. The order also provides for access involving the mother, siblings and extended family, including the maternal grandmother, and requires the Agency to support the mother in sourcing therapy identified by an expert witness.
The judgment sets further reviews around the child’s 16th and 18th birthdays, directs age-appropriate life story work and support for the child’s knowledge of her identity and culture, and provides for the Guardian ad Litem to be reappointed if specified circumstances arise. The Guardian was discharged from the proceedings with effect from the order date.