Judgment: 2026-03-11 · Court archive

District Court grants care order to age 18 for child in foster care since infancy

Dublin Metropolitan District Court · [2026] IEDC 5

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • C
  • Child and Family Agency
  • Judge Conor Fottrell
What

District Court grants care order to age 18 for child in foster care since infancy

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Dublin Metropolitan District Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Judge Conor Fottrell found that the statutory threshold was met because the child’s health, development or welfare was likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected if she were placed with her parents at present.

The Dublin Metropolitan District Court has granted a care order until age 18 for a two-and-a-half-year-old child who has remained with the same foster carers since shortly after birth.

The Child and Family Agency sought the order under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991. Both parents opposed it and asked for the child, identified only as C, to be placed in their care.

Judge Conor Fottrell found that the statutory threshold was met because the child’s health, development or welfare was likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected if she were placed with her parents at present.

The court heard that both parents had experienced significant trauma and were vulnerable. A parental capacity assessment found their cognitive functioning fell within the borderline or extremely low range and recommended sustained therapeutic work, parenting support and supported access before reunification could be considered.

The judge accepted that both parents love their child and noted recent efforts to re-engage with therapy. Alcohol or substance misuse was not an issue in the case.

However, longstanding concerns remained. These included difficulties engaging with professionals, missed access visits, problems accepting feedback and allegations against access workers which were investigated but not substantiated. Access had been suspended, and neither parent had seen the child for several months.

The court found that these difficulties had limited the parents’ opportunity to build a stable relationship with the child. It also found no realistic timeframe on the current evidence for when they might be able to resume full-time care.

The child was described by her Guardian ad Litem as settled, curious and doing well in her foster placement. The foster carers are willing to provide long-term care.

The court concluded that a care order to age 18 was necessary and proportionate. The case will return for review in six months, particularly to examine access and the parents’ engagement with therapeutic services. The parents may also apply under section 22 to discharge the order if circumstances change.

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