The District Court made a full care order for a 10-year-old child until she reaches 18, after finding that the statutory threshold for an order was met. By consent, the court scheduled a review for 24 September 2012 and adjourned the mother’s access application to that date.
The Health Service Executive (HSE) applied for the order under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991. The mother, represented in court, conceded that the threshold criteria were met and agreed to the order on condition that there be a September review, after she completed a residential alcohol treatment placement. Her representatives said she had accessed an alcohol treatment programme in February. She did not accept the contents of a psychologist’s report.
The father was unrepresented and did not attend. The judgment records that he knew of the proceedings and had been properly served. The child was represented by a Guardian ad Litem (GAL), who supported the HSE application while raising concerns about the permanence of the child’s private foster placement. The HSE had to apply for funding grants for that placement every three months.
The HSE’s allegations of neglect and emotional abuse were conceded. The judge said they had considered reports, the GAL’s report, evidence from a social worker and the GAL, and submissions from the parties. The judge was satisfied that the criteria in section 18(1)(a), (b) and (c) were met and that a full care order was proportionate.
The GAL’s evidence described the child as happy in her current placement and looking forward to school. She had expressed excitement about staying with her foster carer until she was 18, and wanted to see her mother twice weekly after a more appropriate recent access visit. The GAL said the child’s emotional security depended on continuity of care. The psychologist’s advice, as recorded in the judgment, was that security in the placement was pivotal to the child’s psychological welfare.
The court directed the Placement Committee to complete the fostering assessment and matching process before September, so the current foster carer could be considered for designation as long-term foster carer. If a placement change motivated by funding was contemplated, the case was to be returned to court on six weeks’ notice to the GAL and mother, and brought back forthwith. The court also directed the HSE to provide the mother with therapeutic support to help her cope with the order, support the placement and make access meaningful.
The court said the current care plan met the child’s needs according to the GAL, though it might need review. The judgment does not state the child’s date of birth; the care order’s end date is represented as ‘[date given]’.