The District Court made a one-year care order for Child 8, a 15-year-old, after finding that she had been emotionally, physically and sexually abused. The court said her health, development and welfare would suffer if an order were not made. It did not approve the HSE’s care plan in its current form.
The order was made under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991. The judge said its one-year duration reflected Child 8’s wishes, conveyed through her Guardian ad Litem (GAL), and was supported by the GAL and the social work department. The case is to return to court before the order expires so the court can consider whether an extension is warranted.
The HSE had sought the order. Child 8’s mother consented to a one-year order, but did not admit the HSE’s submitted findings of fact. Her father declined to participate in the proceedings, although he had consented in writing to extensions of an interim order. The GAL supported a one-year order while expressing reservations about the care plan and aspects of Child 8’s placement.
The court heard evidence that Child 8 had gone to a Garda station in July 2012 and reported abuse by her father. A Garda testified that her four sisters attended the next day and also described abuse of themselves and their sister. The judgment records that the father had been charged with multiple counts of rape and sexual assault and with threatening to kill or cause serious harm to Child 8 and a younger sibling. Those charges were listed for trial in the Circuit Criminal Court; the judgment does not report their outcome.
A social worker described the family’s previous involvement with the HSE, including earlier complaints and professional decisions about the children’s safety. The judge said it was difficult to understand a 2006 decision to rely on the mother’s presence in the home as a protective factor, despite the file indicating no placements were available at the time. A psychologist who viewed the specialist Garda interview considered the account credible and said the interview avoided retraumatising Child 8.
The court heard that Child 8 was struggling in care, engaging in high-risk behaviour and self-harm, and receiving weekly psychotherapy. Her residential unit was being investigated nationally following an anonymous complaint. The GAL described concerns about staffing continuity, support and planning, while also acknowledging the unit’s commitment to Child 8.
The judge directed that family access be at the HSE’s discretion and that the GAL remain in place. The HSE must return with an amended care plan. It must also bring the case back if the allocated social worker or fostering link worker is unallocated for two weeks, the placement changes, or a planned May 2013 review does not take place. The judgment directed that any reporting under the cited statutory instrument wait until the father’s prosecution is completed and be fully anonymised.