The District Court made care orders for three children until each reaches 18, finding that the statutory threshold was met and that their health, development and welfare would suffer without the orders. Their father consented to the applications and acknowledged that he could not meet their physical or emotional needs at that time.
The Child and Family Agency (CFA) sought orders under section 18(1)(c) of the Child Care Act 1991. The children, identified in the judgment as Child A, Child B and Child C, had been in the CFA’s care and living together with a foster carer since 2010. Through their Guardian ad Litem, all three expressed a wish to remain in that placement and not live with their father. Child A wanted no contact with him.
The court heard evidence from a social worker and the Guardian ad Litem. The father admitted the agency’s proposed findings of fact, subject to specified deletions and amendments. The judge concluded that there was no evidence supporting the children’s return to their father under a supervision order. Although the Guardian had recommended a one-year order for Child A while questions about her birth certificate were addressed, the judge said a shorter order could heighten her sense of difference from her siblings, with whom she lives.
The court approved the care plans and directed that contact between each child and their father be carefully measured in line with each child’s best interests. It ordered the CFA to provide therapeutic services set out in the plans or identified at statutory reviews, and to provide the father with services to help him participate in those reviews and restore his relationship with the children.
The judgment also set out circumstances requiring the case to return to court, including a change in the foster placement, a gap of six weeks without an allocated social worker or fostering link worker, or a missed statutory review. The Guardian was discharged on the making of the orders, with provision for reappointment six weeks before any return to court, or for a replacement application if she became unavailable.
Pending clarification of Child A’s birth certificate details, the court determined under section 32 that 22 July 1999, as certified in the certificate from Masaka, Uganda, was to be treated as her correct date of birth. The judge scheduled an after-care review for Child A on 22 July 2015 to revisit the certificate and her unresolved right to remain in Ireland after the care order ends. Further reviews were listed for Child B on 13 April 2018 and Child C on 14 December 2020, if they remained in CFA care.