The District Court made a care order until a seven-year-old child reaches 18, finding that the section 18(1)(c) threshold was met and that the order was necessary and proportionate to allow him to remain in his current residential placement.
The Health Service Executive (HSE) applied for the order under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991. The judgment, dated 20 June 2012, says the application proceeded with the mother’s consent. The father did not participate in the proceedings. The child had been separately represented by a Guardian ad Litem (GAL), who was also represented in court.
The child had entered voluntary HSE care in May 2002 and spent a period in residential care with a sibling before returning to his mother. An Emergency Care Order was made in April 2011, followed by an Interim Care Order granted on 8 April 2011. That interim order had been extended 11 times before the care hearing.
A social worker gave evidence from reports, including a final report dated 11 June 2012, and said the threshold criteria continued to be met. The judgment records that the child wanted to remain in his current placement, identified as X Residential Unit. The mother had said she needed a longer period of stability in her recovery before resuming full-time parenting and had considered the child’s wishes.
The GAL said the HSE care plan was satisfactory, while raising concerns about a review of after-care and what would happen if the placement broke down. The GAL reported that the child wanted to remain in the placement and regulate his own access with his mother. The court made no access order, saying the arrangement was self-regulated and satisfactory to the child, his mother and the HSE. The parties may return to court if circumstances change.
Under section 47, the court directed that the case be re-entered and the GAL re-appointed in specified circumstances, including a four-week period without an allocated social worker or fostering link worker, a planned or unplanned change of foster placement, and an after-care review timed to coincide with the child’s 17th birthday. The HSE was also directed to provide appropriate therapeutic services for the child and his mother, and to ensure the child received the interventions in the care plan.
The court awarded costs to the GAL, to be taxed if the parties could not agree, and refused the mother’s application for costs under the Legal Aid Act 1995.