The District Court declined to make a care order for a 17-year-old who had been in the care of the Health Service Executive (HSE), finding that although the statutory threshold was met, an order would be disproportionate. Instead, it made a supervision order under section 19 of the Child Care Act 1991 and issued directions for support to the young person and her parents.
The HSE’s application was heard from 7 to 9 November 2012. The judgment, dated 14 November, records that the young person had entered care under an emergency care order in February 2012, followed by an interim care order in March that was extended 13 times. Her guardian ad litem supported a care order for its full duration. Both parents opposed the application and sought her return to their care.
The court heard that the young person had attended hospital with a wrist injury in November 2011 and later with an epileptic episode and difficulties with mobility. Two consultant neurologists ruled out a structural or organic cause for the mobility problems; one considered that stress may have contributed. The young person told professionals that her father had hit her and that she was afraid to return home. The father admitted hitting her on three occasions between September 2011 and February 2012. The mother said she knew of one incident, which she had not witnessed.
The judge found that the young person had been assaulted and that her welfare had been avoidably impaired or neglected because of the assaults, which appeared to have caused or contributed to her functional disorder. The court was also satisfied that she needed protection she was unlikely to receive without an order, citing the parents’ difficulty managing stress and anger and uncertainty about whether the family would cooperate sufficiently to protect her.
The HSE had offered family therapy, a parenting course and support from a family resource worker. The judgment records difficulties and resistance in the parents’ engagement with services, as well as the young person’s refusal of most aftercare offers. The judge considered both the supports offered and the family’s limited time before the young person’s 18th birthday. The court found the HSE had acted proportionately, but concluded a care order would not be proportionate in light of her consistent wish to return home and the likelihood she would do so within weeks.
The supervision order was to run until a date withheld in the judgment. Under section 47 directions, the parents were to engage with parenting coaching and the family resource worker, and family therapy was to be identified immediately. The young person was directed to continue her psychological assessment and any recommended therapies. The judge also directed that she receive aftercare under section 45. The guardian ad litem was discharged, with her costs to be paid by the HSE.