The District Court made care orders for one year for three children after finding that their development and welfare had been avoidably impaired or neglected. The court did not find that the evidence established a real or substantial risk of future harm, and limited the orders to one year after considering proportionality and the family’s rights.
Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, had applied under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991 for care orders lasting until each child reached adulthood. The children’s Guardian ad Litem supported the application. The father attended, was legally represented and consented, while the mother did not attend; her representative was present but said he had no instructions from her. The judge said the court still had to assess the evidence and statutory threshold.
The judgment records that concerns about the family began in 2010, including referrals about parental alcohol use and the children’s exposure to domestic violence. After a further referral in 2011, the case remained open. In 2012, the family went to the UK, where the mother and children were placed under police protection following an assault on the mother by the father. After the family returned, the children were placed under interim care orders and later in voluntary care, before further interim orders were granted in December 2013.
The court found that both parents had long-standing alcohol addictions that neither had adequately addressed, and that there was a long history of domestic violence to which the children had been exposed. It said those findings about parental conduct did not, on their own, prove avoidable impairment or neglect. Relying on the Guardian’s evidence about the children’s cumulative neglect and welfare, the judge found that the statutory threshold for avoidable impairment or neglect was met for all three children.
The court found the agency had not established a factual basis for deciding there was a real or substantial risk of future harm. It also noted gaps in the agency evidence, including the absence of formal assessments of parental capacity, the impact on the children, and the risk of returning them to parental care. However, the judge concluded that the parents’ lack of meaningful engagement and sustained progress made it unlikely they could provide adequate care or protection at that time.
In setting the duration, the judge considered the evidence, the father’s consent, the mother’s non-participation, and the children’s wishes and welfare. Child 1 wished to remain with foster carers, Child 2 did not wish to return home, and Child 3 wanted to return only if the older children did. The court ordered care for one year for each child, reserved the respondents’ costs application to January 2015, and granted liberty to apply.