The District Court made care orders under section 18(1) of the Child Care Act 1991 for four children aged nine, eight, five and four, after finding that their health, development or welfare had been avoidably impaired or neglected and was likely to be so in future without court orders.
The children were already in the care of the Child and Family Agency (CFA) under interim orders made in early 2013 and extended up to the hearing. Their mother, who was legally represented, consented to the care order and accepted that the threshold for making it had been met. Their father was represented but did not attend; his lawyer did not oppose the CFA’s application. The children’s Guardian ad Litem (GAL) represented their separate interests.
The judgment describes years of CFA involvement and attempts to support the family while the children remained at home. The court heard evidence from social workers, a psychologist and the GAL. Reports from a psychologist, a psychiatrist and a consultant paediatrician were admitted without formal proof. The court recorded that the mother had been diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2013 and that assessments found she could not provide adequate and safe parenting. Her lawyer said she accepted that she had mental ill health but did not fully understand the diagnosis or its implications.
The judge found that the mother’s complex difficulties had made her emotionally unavailable to the children, causing physical and emotional harm. The judge also found that the father’s inability or unwillingness to provide protective care, together with his inability to empathise with the children’s situation, exposed them to emotional harm.
The order gives the CFA discretion over access under section 37, with the frequency of each parent’s access to be reviewed after the care order. The court highlighted the children’s cultural heritage and the need for good-quality sibling contact while they were in separate placements.
Under section 47, the CFA was directed to provide the mother with support, including an interpreter and advocate, to help her engage in access and interactions with the agency. Directions also cover educational assessments and support, speech and language needs, and therapeutic services for all four children. The GAL was to remain in place until the outstanding arrangements were made, and the case was to return to court in May 2014 to clarify reports and services.
Further court reviews were directed for late 2015 and around each child’s sixteenth birthday for after-care planning, if the child remained in CFA care. The court adjourned costs generally, with liberty to re-enter.