The District Court made a care order under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991 for Child 3, a seven-year-old girl, until she turns 18. After a five-day hearing, the court found that she had been neglected, that her health, development or welfare had been avoidably impaired or neglected, and that further avoidable impairment or neglect was likely. It concluded she needed care or protection she was unlikely to receive without the order.
The court heard evidence about concerns over the care of Child 3 and repeated allegations by her mother, the second respondent, that the child had been sexually abused by her father, the first respondent. The mother opposed the application. The father supported it. The judgment says the mother accepted the professional assessment of Psychologist 1 during the hearing, but disputed the diagnosis and recommendations in her own evidence.
An independent child sexual abuse unit investigated the allegations. Its evidence was that there was no information supporting sexual abuse. The court also heard that the child had not described abusive conduct in interviews, and that she said in a Garda interview: “Dad is really nice. Dad never did anything bad to me”. The court did not make a finding that the father had sexually abused her. It found that the child had suffered emotional harm from persistent exposure to her mother’s belief that abuse had occurred.
Psychologist 1 assessed the mother as having a mild intellectual disability and said she needed extensive support in parenting. The court found the mother had a fixed and rigid belief that her daughter had been abused and did not understand the effect of her conduct on the child’s needs. It also said there was no malice and that the mother loved her daughter deeply. The Guardian ad Litem and other experts described the child as distressed and having special needs.
Under section 47 of the Act, the court directed that the HSE determine access arrangements for the child with her parents, siblings and extended family, taking account of professional recommendations. Access is to be supervised by a suitably qualified and experienced worker with disability-needs training. The HSE must appoint an experienced social worker, review and implement the child’s care plan and assessment of needs annually, and provide the mother with assistance to participate meaningfully in care meetings.
The court also directed that the case return to court if the child’s case is without an experienced social worker for four continuous weeks, or before any planned or unplanned change of foster placement. The Guardian Ad Litem is to be re-appointed in those circumstances. The judgment does not specify a separate review date for the care order.