Judgment: 2026-07-01 · Court archive

District Court grants care order to age 18 for five-month-old baby

Dublin Metropolitan District Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • E
  • BE
  • Child and Family Agency
  • Judge Conor Fottrell
What

District Court grants care order to age 18 for five-month-old baby

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Dublin Metropolitan District Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Neither parent attended the final care-order hearing, although the court was satisfied both knew it was taking place. Their lawyers had no instructions, so the application proceeded uncontested. The court heard from the allocated social worker and the child’s Guardian ad Litem.

The Dublin Metropolitan District Court has granted a care order until age 18 for a five-month-old baby who has been in State care since shortly after birth.

Judge Conor Fottrell delivered the decision on 1 July 2026. The child, identified only as E, and both parents are anonymised under child-care reporting restrictions.

The Child and Family Agency sought the order after evidence concerning parental substance misuse, homelessness and difficulties engaging with services. The mother had not attended medical appointments during pregnancy and late-pregnancy toxicology testing was positive for heroin, cocaine and cannabis.

After birth in January 2026, the baby experienced withdrawal symptoms and tested positive for cocaine. He spent several days in neonatal intensive care. An emergency care order followed on 15 January, after which the child moved through an emergency placement to the longer-term foster placement where he remains.

Neither parent attended the final care-order hearing, although the court was satisfied both knew it was taking place. Their lawyers had no instructions, so the application proceeded uncontested. The court heard from the allocated social worker and the child’s Guardian ad Litem.

Evidence before the court was that the parents had not seen the child since January and remained difficult for social workers to contact. No current evidence showed that either parent could provide a stable, safe and drug-free home.

By contrast, the court was told that the child was settled and thriving with foster carers who can provide long-term care.

Judge Fottrell found the statutory threshold under section 18(1)(c) of the Child Care Act 1991 was met and that a full care order was necessary and proportionate.

The order does not permanently rule out reunification. The parents may apply under section 22 to discharge it, and the Agency must continue considering reunification at child-in-care reviews. The court also directed a review in one year and imposed several safeguards requiring the case to be returned to court if specified problems arise with social-work allocation, placement or care planning.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review