The Dublin Metropolitan District Court made 18-month care orders for H and J, committing both children to the care of the Child and Family Agency until 25 July 2019.
The application was brought under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991. In a judgment dated 26 January 2018, Judge Brendan Toale found that both children had been neglected and that their health, development or welfare was likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected if returned to either parent at that time. He concluded that neither parent had yet demonstrated the capacity to address the deficits that had led to the neglect.
The children had been in the agency’s care since early 2015. The judge found that conditions at the family’s second home were unacceptable and inappropriate, and that inadequate supervision, safety concerns, a lack of boundaries and insufficient stimulation also amounted to neglect. He said the neglect was circumstantial in nature.
The mother opposed the 18-month period, saying she would consent to orders lasting two or three months. She accepted in evidence that she could not care for the children at that time, but maintained she could resume care within months. The father consented to the application. The children’s guardian ad litem supported it.
The court considered the mother’s recent improvement in mental health, but found she did not then have the capacity to provide adequate parenting. It also considered evidence that the father could not yet provide adequate care. The judge said the order would allow the mother time to stabilise her health, progress towards independent living and undertake a parenting capacity assessment. It would also give the father an opportunity to take part in a recommended parenting intervention. The court did not decide what the eventual outcome of future assessments would be.
Both parents wanted the children placed together with relative carer A, who cared for H. J remained with a non-relative foster carer. The agency had not formally assessed A as a carer for J and said it would assess or complete the assessment. The judge retained doubts about whether the court could order a particular placement and made no determination on that question. He considered any application for such a direction premature until the assessment had a reasonable opportunity to be completed.
The court directed quarterly reviews of access arrangements, six-monthly reviews of J’s family plan, a parenting intervention and follow-up assessment for the father, and a referral for H to be assessed for possible ADHD and attachment issues. It also ordered scheduled reviews and meetings concerning the children’s care plans and parental progress, and set conditions for the case to return to court if specified care or social-work arrangements failed. The guardian ad litem was discharged from the current proceedings, with provision for reappointment in specified circumstances.