The District Court made a care order for Child 4 until the age of 18, with a review scheduled for November 2016. The child’s parents had conceded that the legal threshold for a care order was met, but sought an order limited to two years. The court rejected that proposed duration while leaving open an application to discharge the order if circumstances later supported reunification.
The case concerned a child aged about two. The Child and Family Agency applied under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991. The judgment records that the parents accepted they could not provide adequate care at that time. The judge found that both had longstanding substance misuse issues, that their relationship involved domestic violence and co-dependency, and that neither could offer consistent parenting then.
The Agency and the Guardian ad Litem supported an order until the child turned 18. They said the child needed stable care in the current foster placement, which also cared for an older sibling. The parents argued that a two-year order would give the mother time to address her addiction and allow the possibility of the child returning to her care. The father said he intended to live separately from the mother after his release from prison and engage with social workers about access.
The judge found that the child had experienced neglect associated with parental substance misuse, a three-month period without contact with the mother while in relative foster care, and harm from a subsequent placement move. The court also found that the child retained a bond with the mother. It concluded that the child’s welfare was likely to be impaired or neglected in future without a care order.
In choosing the order’s duration, the judge said the parents’ assurances of change remained aspirations and that past improvements had not been sustained. The court considered the child’s need for consistent care at a critical developmental stage, but stressed that a care order does not end parental rights and foster care is not adoption. The Agency remains obliged to consider reunification, and the parents may apply under section 22 to discharge the order after the two-year review if their commitments have endured.
The court approved the care plan and directed the Agency to support both parents’ participation in access, provide the mother with identified therapeutic and remedial services, and arrange psychological and attachment advice for the child. It ordered the case re-entered in April 2015 if the placement had not been matched as long term or the specified attachment specialist had not been nominated. Further directions covered changes or gaps in care arrangements, a possible after-care review in September 2028, and reappointment of the Guardian ad Litem in July 2026. The judgment prohibits reporting that could identify the child or any party.