The District Court extended an interim care order for a two-year-old child until 6 November 2013, a period of two weeks. The judge said the extension was proportionate and would give the mother an opportunity to take medical treatment and gain composure before the case returned to court.
The Health Service Executive (HSE) had sought a longer extension, citing concerns that the mother could not then meet the child’s basic and developmental needs and that substance-use issues affected her ability to care for the child. The mother contested the application. The father supported it through his solicitor, on a strictly without-prejudice basis. Both parents were present and legally represented. The child did not have a separately appointed Guardian ad Litem.
The order followed a period in which the child had been at home with the mother under a supervision order and protection plan. On 26 September 2013, the mother consented to an interim care order under section 4 of the Child Care Act 1991. The HSE then applied to extend that order under section 17.
A social worker told the court that the mother’s behaviour raised concerns about ongoing substance dependency. The mother said she had stopped using drugs and medication, apart from her inhaler, and had been abstinent for nine weeks. She said she was providing supervised urine samples through a treatment service, but the results were not before the court. The judge said there was no corroborating evidence of the mother’s claimed detoxification and called for clarity about her treatment programme and test results at the next hearing.
The court also heard evidence about the mother’s interaction with the child during access visits, including feedback from family support workers. The mother and grandmother raised concerns that the child had been injured in foster care. The HSE had investigated and concluded the child was safe in the placement; a social worker acknowledged small marks on the child’s ear and arm, with the arm mark possibly psoriasis. The judge said a medical assessment should have been arranged in response to the injury concerns.
The judge identified substance use and homelessness as issues affecting the mother’s ability to provide adequate care, while noting that no professional had said either the mother or child lacked love for the other. The judge also criticised the lack of support to help the mother achieve previously discussed reunification goals and said she needed assistance to understand and engage with the issues.
For the next hearing, the court required a plan addressing the threshold for any order sought by the HSE, access arrangements, support during access including a Marte Meo therapist, identified services and providers, and medical support for the mother. The judge said the case should not continue without focus. The source records the extension and directions; it does not state a final determination of the care proceedings.