The District Court granted the Child and Family Agency (CFA) a care order until a three-year-old child turns 18, finding that the child’s welfare had been impaired or neglected and was likely to be impaired or neglected in the future without an order.
The judgment, dated 25 March 2014, says the child had entered care in March 2013 under emergency powers. An interim care order was made the following month and extended nine times. The mother was represented but did not attend the hearing. The father, also represented, consented to a care order but argued that it should last only two or three years. He said he hoped to secure residency, work and a stable home so he could care for his daughter.
The CFA’s stated grounds included that the mother could not meet the child’s basic needs or provide safe care and supervision. The judgment records that she had not exercised access since May 2013 and had not engaged consistently with the agency. The CFA acknowledged that its investigation into alleged physical abuse was inconclusive and said it would not ask the court to make a finding on that allegation.
The court ordered care under section 18(1)(b) and (c) of the Child Care Act 1991. It said an order lasting until 18 was proportionate, citing the child’s secure attachment to the current carer, limited contact with both parents, and the need for a stable long-term placement. The court also noted the father’s caring and appropriate interactions during two visits, but recorded his evidence that he could not provide stable care in the short or medium term.
Access was left to the agency’s discretion under section 37, with the frequency of contact to be reviewed. The court directed the CFA to prepare an access plan for the child and her immediate and extended family, support both parents’ participation, and provide necessary medical and therapeutic services.
The case was to return to court on 26 September 2014 to check whether the current placement had been matched as the child’s long-term placement. The order also set out circumstances requiring the case to be brought back, including a placement breakdown or specified gaps in social work or fostering support. The judgment allows the father to seek discharge of the care order if he later becomes able to offer the child stability.