The District Court made a care order under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991 for a six-year-old child, after finding that the statutory threshold was met on grounds of neglect and sexual abuse. The order is to remain in force until the child turns 18; the judgment’s date for that point is withheld in the source.
The child entered care under an emergency order on 11 June 2010. An interim care order followed on 18 June and was extended 16 times, most recently until 24 February 2012. The case arose after a member of the public alerted Gardaí to video footage found on a discarded phone’s SIM card. The judgment says the recording appeared to show the child performing oral sex on her father and had been made by her mother. Gardaí removed the child from her maternal grandparents’ care under section 12 of the Act, citing an immediate risk to her health, development and welfare.
The HSE alleged neglect, exposure to parental alcohol abuse and domestic violence, physical abuse, and sexual abuse. It also said criminal charges were pending against both parents and that the child displayed sexualised behaviour at school. Those allegations were distinct from the court’s findings under the care proceedings.
The parents consented to a care order through their lawyers, but did not concede that sexual abuse had occurred. The father’s counsel accepted neglect and that the father was responsible for highly inappropriate sexual behaviour, while disputing that it met the Children First definition of child sexual abuse. The judge rejected that proposed definition for these proceedings and found the threshold met under section 18(1)(a), (b) and (c), including on both neglect and sexual abuse. The judge said criminal prosecutions pending in another court were separate matters and made no determination of those cases.
The court left access to the HSE’s discretion within section 37 and the parameters agreed by the parents, guardian ad litem and HSE, with access to meet the child’s and parents’ needs. It directed that access take place in a child-centred venue and that the child have a reasonable opportunity to maintain a good-quality relationship with each parent.
The court also directed the placement committee to consider the relative foster-care assessment at the earliest opportunity after its expected completion in April, and before July. The case was to return on 10 July 2012, when the long-term foster placement was to be settled and an updated care plan filed. The guardian ad litem was to remain in place until then. Further directions covered re-entry if the case remained without a social worker and fostering link worker for four weeks, therapeutic interventions for each parent, and setting an after-care review re-entry date.