The District Court in Tuam granted care orders for three children until they reach adulthood, finding that they required care or protection they were unlikely to receive without court orders. The court also set review and support arrangements, including a review of the youngest child’s order after three years.
The Child and Family Agency (CFA) had applied under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991. The children, identified in the judgment as DF, AF and FF, were already subject to interim care orders. Their mother, QF, opposed the applications. TH did not engage with the proceedings but was agreeable to the arrangements then in place. KC, described as FF’s putative father, did not engage; the court said there was no objective evidence before it establishing that he was FF’s father.
The court found that DF and AF had suffered psychological harm after witnessing violence, and ill-treatment and neglect, including in the context of QF’s alcohol misuse and her difficulty understanding their emotional and psychological needs. It found that the children’s lives had lacked safety and stability, and that the older children had developed coping strategies that could affect their ability to accept care and form relationships. AF has diagnosed ADHD.
For FF, the court noted significant medical and developmental needs, including deafness in his right ear and a hole in his palate likely to require further surgery. It found that QF could not currently meet the children’s complex emotional and psychological needs. However, the judge also recorded QF’s recent progress in engaging with the CFA and addressing her alcohol issues. The court expressly found insufficient evidence to establish that she drank excessively during pregnancy.
The court concluded that the statutory threshold for care orders was met for all three children and that supervision orders would not be sufficient. DF and AF were to remain with their foster carers, with respite care for AF as required. FF was to remain with his foster carers. All three orders run until the children reach adulthood; FF’s order is to be reviewed after three years.
Access, including sibling access, is at the CFA’s discretion and should be supervised unless the agency decides supervision is unnecessary. The court recommended reducing FF’s contact with QF to three times per fortnight in the shorter term. It also directed the CFA to arrange and fund appropriate services for the children, conduct annual reviews, and support their foster carers. The court ordered that the case be listed within a month to set a review date and address care plans and sibling access. It did not retain seisin of the matter.