The District Court has made a care order for Child C until she reaches 18, after finding that her health, development and welfare were likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected without an order. The decision followed an application by the Child and Family Agency to extend an earlier order.
The court heard evidence from an allocated social worker, Child C’s father and a guardian ad litem. The mother did not appear or have representation at the hearing. The judgment says both parents attended when it was delivered. The judge was satisfied that each parent had been served and that the Dublin Metropolitan District had jurisdiction.
Child C had been living with foster carers since infancy. The judgment records that she had experienced neglect while in her parents’ care, had improved since placement, was meeting her milestones and had formed a close attachment to her foster carers. She had contact with her maternal grandmother but not with either parent.
The father asked for time to address his difficulties and opposed an order lasting until Child C turned 18. He told the court he had separated from the mother, returned to his parents’ home and was free of substances after detoxing at a relative’s home over Christmas. He also regretted not engaging with social workers or arranging access during the previous 18 months. The judge said his evidence about whether he was still using drugs in 2016 was unclear, and found that neither parent had purposefully engaged with the social worker or Child C through access during that period.
The judge found, on the balance of probabilities, that the statutory threshold under section 18(1) of the Child Care Act 1991 was met. The court approved the care plan and directed that parental access take place under section 37, in a way that respects the rights of the parents and child and supports their family relationship.
The order is subject to a review in 12 months to assess the parents’ progress in addressing addiction and attending access. The agency must provide both parents with supports for meaningful participation in visits, and provide remedial and therapeutic services to the parents and Child C. The case must be brought back to court in specified circumstances, including if the foster placement breaks down or the agency seeks to change it. The judgment also says either parent may apply to discharge the order if they sustain a drug-free lifestyle, engage consistently in access and demonstrate capacity to parent.
The guardian ad litem was excused, with costs payable by the agency. The judgment prohibits reporting that could identify Child C or any party to the proceedings.