The District Court made a care order for a nine-month-old child until he reaches 18, finding that his health, development and welfare were likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected if he returned to his mother’s care at that time.
The order followed an application by the Health Service Executive (HSE) under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991. The mother, who was present and represented, consented to the order. The court said she accepted that she could not then provide the stability, security and consistency the child needed. The child’s father did not attend or participate; the court was satisfied he had been properly served. The judgment states he was not the child’s legal guardian.
The court heard evidence from medical and social work professionals, a Garda, the child’s guardian ad litem (GAL) and the mother. Medical evidence described the child’s low birth weight, symptoms after birth and positive urine tests for opiates and benzodiazepines. He was considered at risk of developmental and behavioural challenges and required consistent follow-up. The allocated social worker assessed him as being at high risk of future neglect if returned to his mother at that stage. The GAL said he was responding well with foster carers and that reunification could not then be considered.
The HSE’s case relied on concerns about the child’s health and development, the mother’s ability to provide consistent care, and her engagement with access arrangements and a parental capacity assessment. The judgment records that the mother conceded many of the proposed findings, including that she had mental health difficulties and had experienced domestic violence. Her counsel stressed that there was no specific professional diagnosis of the extent of those difficulties. The mother did not concede an allegation that she had behaved threateningly or abusively towards professionals. The court’s threshold finding was based on the evidence and submissions; it did not adopt every proposed allegation as a finding.
The court also ordered that access for the mother be at the HSE’s discretion, while describing access as vital for the child and both parents, subject to engagement. The HSE was to review access arrangements with the parents, including any necessary frequency and supports. If dissatisfied, the parties could apply to the court under section 37. Sibling access was included.
Under section 47, the court directed a care review for 23 January 2014, with the GAL to be reappointed two months beforehand. It required the case to return to court in specified circumstances, including an unmatched foster placement after six months, a change in placement, or a four-week period without an allocated social worker or fostering link worker. The HSE was directed to provide the court with the existing care plan and update it at the one-year review, including the child’s paediatric care status. The HSE was also directed to provide the mother with assistance and referrals in light of her homelessness. If the child remained in care until 18, an aftercare review was to take place on his 17th birthday; the judgment does not state the date.