The District Court made care orders for three children until each reaches 18 after finding that their health, development and welfare had been neglected and were likely to be impaired without court intervention. The mother consented to the orders sought by Tusla, while denying that she had neglected or emotionally abused the children.
In reasons dated 21 May 2018, Judge Rosemary Horgan said the mother was homeless and had an addiction to cocaine and unprescribed benzodiazepines while receiving methadone treatment. The court found that her addiction had prevented her from parenting the children and engaging consistently with social workers or access arrangements. It found that the children had been unintentionally neglected and emotionally abused.
The mother had not seen the children at access since March 2017. The court heard that the two older children did not wish to see her at that time, while the youngest wanted access. The judge directed that access between the mother and youngest child could proceed under section 37 of the Child Care Act 1991 after the mother attended two consecutive appointments arranged within one calendar month. Access with the older children was to be approached in light of their views; consistent attendance with the youngest might encourage them to engage. The court said either side could apply if an impasse arose.
The judge approved the care plans for the two younger children but did not approve the plan for the oldest, citing concerns about the security of his foster placement and the support and remedial services he needed. The Agency was directed to provide necessary therapeutic services and update care plans at statutory reviews. The case must return to court if specified support for the oldest child ceases within 18 months.
The court also directed a review of the mother’s progress with drug treatment, access attendance and whether her parenting capacity should be assessed. The Agency was ordered to provide support within its statutory remit and to coordinate with other agencies where needed. Further return-to-court directions covered foster placement matching, gaps in social work or fostering support, care-planning compliance, material placement changes and aftercare planning as the children approach 17.
The judgment prohibits reporting that could identify the children or parties involved in the proceedings.