The District Court refused the Health Service Executive’s applications for care orders for Child 3 and Child 4, finding that they should live with their mother and two older siblings as a family unit. It made a one-year supervision order for the two younger children. The court declined to make a supervision order for Child 1 and Child 2, saying it would serve no real purpose.
The judgment, dated 11 December 2013, concerned four anonymised children. The HSE had sought care orders for Child 3 and Child 4 until they turned 18. It had initially sought care orders for Child 1 and Child 2, but withdrew that application on the first day of the hearing and substituted an application for supervision. That was the only application before the court concerning the older pair.
The judge found that all four children had been neglected while in their mother’s care, including being left without suitable adult supervision on occasions and living in unsuitable and unhygienic housing conditions. The judge also found that Child 3 and Child 4 had suffered emotional harm and at times assumed adult roles. The court did not, however, accept the HSE’s claim that the mother had legally “abandoned” the children.
The judgment records that the children wanted to return to their mother and live with their siblings. The Guardian ad Litem (GAL) considered the mother unable to meet their emotional needs and opposed returning them to her care. The judge weighed those concerns against the children’s ages, expressed wishes, self-care skills and distress at separation from their family. The judgment also noted cultural differences and said a cultural mediator had not been included in earlier discussions about possible reunification.
For Child 1 and Child 2, the judge said their hostility to the HSE and unwillingness to engage with services made a supervision order unlikely to work. The court therefore declined that application “at this time”.
For Child 3 and Child 4, the court found the statutory threshold for a care order had been met, but concluded that such an order would not serve their long-term welfare and would be disproportionate. It refused the care order applications and made a supervision order under section 19 of the Child Care Act 1991, requiring periodic visits at home by or on behalf of the HSE for one year.
The judge discharged the GAL. The court adjourned the supervision order to January 2014 to consider any directions sought, including whether Child 3 and Child 4 should join the proceedings with solicitors. The costs application was also adjourned to that date.