The District Court made a care order until a young child reaches 18, finding that an order under section 18(1)(b) and (c) of the Child Care Act 1991 was necessary to secure care and protection the child was unlikely to receive otherwise.
The edited judgment says the child was about 32 months old at the hearing. The Child and Family Agency had sought an order lasting until the child turned 18, with support from the Guardian ad Litem. Both parents, who were present and legally represented at the hearing, accepted that they could not care for the child while addressing longstanding addiction issues and seeking stable housing. They consented to the order on condition that the court review it after 12 months.
The court heard that the child was born prematurely with neonatal abstinence syndrome and other health difficulties. Earlier family support and voluntary care arrangements did not provide consistent care. The child returned to the mother’s care under a private family arrangement that had changed without the Agency’s knowledge, and missed a significant number of public health appointments. The Agency later obtained interim care orders, which were extended until the section 18 hearing.
Social workers described continuing addiction and housing difficulties and said the child needed further assessment for speech and language delay, occupational therapy and psychological needs. The Agency’s social work reports and parental capacity assessment were not admitted without formal proof, although treatment-plan and urine-analysis reports were admitted. The Guardian ad Litem said the child’s needs had to be identified and services put in place, and supported an order until age 18 with a review in 12 months. The Guardian could not recommend the care plan at that stage; the judgment says the plan was later found sufficient after review.
The mother disputed a report that the child had insufficient food at home. The judge accepted her evidence on that point. The court nevertheless found that past voluntary care, child protection oversight, supervision and successive interim care orders had not ensured the child’s welfare or long-term care needs.
The judge directed a review of the parents’ progress with addiction and health issues and their consistency in attending access. Access was to remain flexible under section 37, with no formal access order made at that time. After adjourning the question of section 47 directions so the Guardian could review the care plan, the court made formal directions requiring the case to return in specified circumstances, including a break or change in the foster placement, a period without an allocated social worker or fostering link worker, or delays in required meetings. The judgment also records a default re-entry direction tied to a redacted date and an after-care review date, also redacted, if the child remained in Agency care at that point.