The District Court made care orders until age 18 for two children, finding that the threshold under section 18(1)(a) of the Child Care Act 1991 was met. The orders were described as proportionate in the circumstances at the time, but the court did not rule out reunification. It directed a review in six months.
The Health Service Executive brought two sets of proceedings concerning the children, identified in the judgment as Child 1 and Child 2. The cases were heard over three days. The judgment is dated 1 November 2011.
The court was satisfied, after considering reports and hearing evidence, that both children had regularly been subjected to corporal punishment by their parents. The children had consistently described being beaten with a belt or cable cord. The parents denied hitting them. In Child 2’s case, the court admitted her Garda statement as hearsay after the parents declined to call her for cross-examination; they continued to dispute its truth. A GP testified that Child 2 had given a clear account of what led her to leave home. The judgment also records that she had a slight mark on her hand, but no marks on her back consistent with being struck seven times with a belt.
Child 1 entered care in 2008 after telling an out-of-hours service that he feared going home and alleging repeated physical chastisement and ridicule by his father. Child 2 entered care after emergency care orders were granted in December 2010 for her and three siblings. The judgment says she alleged that her father beat her with a belt. Both older children wished to return home if circumstances changed. The judge noted that Child 1 was unhappy in residential care and had not attended school for a considerable time, while Child 2 was doing well academically in temporary foster care.
The judge was not satisfied with the HSE’s proposed care plan and required an aftercare plan and timetable for Child 1. The court directed that family access be flexible, phased and supported, with overnight access considered, taking account of the children’s wishes. It also ordered counselling and anger-management support for Child 1, help with his return to formal schooling, therapeutic support for both children, and assistance for the parents to participate in care meetings in light of cultural and linguistic needs.
The HSE was directed to produce Child 1’s aftercare plan and assessment of needs, with an allocated aftercare worker, within three months. The case was listed for review in six months to assess access and progress towards reunification. The court also adjourned the matter for mention on 9 November 2011. The source’s final line gives an incomplete placeholder for the first review date.