The District Court granted the Health Service Executive (HSE) a care order for Child 1 until 2 January 2024, finding that the threshold under section 18(1)(c) of the Child Care Act 1991 was met. The application was heard on 30 October 2012. The order followed a previous three-year care order made with the parents’ consent in November 2009.
The mother opposed the application and sought her child’s return. The father also opposed it. The court heard evidence from social workers, an attachment specialist, psychologists and the Guardian ad Litem (GAL), as well as both parents. The GAL supported a care order for its full duration.
The court found a history of neglect and abandonment, the mother’s alcohol and drug misuse, including alcohol use during pregnancy, and domestic violence between the parents. It also cited difficulties engaging the father and, more recently, the mother with support services; the father’s limited insight into the child’s needs and aggression towards support services; both parents’ limited parenting capacity; and the mother’s inability to protect the child.
The judgment records that the mother had engaged positively with addiction treatment and had maintained sobriety over a sustained period. The court nevertheless concluded that neither parent had shown the ability to provide consistent care, with no indication that this was likely to change in the foreseeable future. It found that the child’s health, development and welfare would suffer if a care order were not made, and that remaining with his current foster carers was in his best interests.
The court acknowledged shortcomings in HSE planning and the child’s placement history, which the judgment describes as ten placement changes, including a return to his mother’s care. It found those changes had contributed to attachment difficulties. However, the child had experienced greater stability in his current placement since late 2009; the foster carers were approved as long-term carers, and the court considered the HSE competent to care for the child at this time.
The court also found the HSE had reviewed the family situation through care reviews and that its decision against reunification at this time was proportionate. The care order does not itself set out an access schedule: the court ordered access between the child and his parents under section 37, without specifying its frequency in this judgment.
The court approved the proposed foster placement and directed a return on 7 January 2013 to review the care plan, receive an updated forensic psychologist’s report and review a mentoring programme for the parents. A further review was set for 6 May 2014. The court also ordered the case to be re-entered in specified circumstances, including a change of placement or a lapse in social work or fostering-link-worker allocation, and recommended parenting and therapeutic supports for the father.