The District Court made a care order for Child S until the age of 18 after finding that returning the child to the care of either parent would pose too great a risk at this time. The order is due to expire in September 2030.
The Child and Family Agency (CFA) applied under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991. The parents, identified as SH and SMcG in the judgment, were not present at the hearing. They had returned to a neighbouring jurisdiction in December 2013. Both had legal representation, but their lawyers were not instructed for this application. The child was represented by a court-appointed Guardian ad Litem.
Child S entered foster care under an interim care order in September 2012 and had remained there. The court heard evidence from the allocated social worker, an addiction-service GP, a clinical psychologist and the Guardian. The psychologist assessed both parents as having severe addictions and concluded that the father had not shown a consistent capacity to parent. The social worker’s evidence identified concerns including drug misuse, homelessness, criminality and domestic violence. The GP described the parents’ engagement with treatment as relatively good overall, while agreeing they were probably regularly using non-prescribed drugs.
The Guardian said Child S was doing well in a stable foster placement and had a strong sense of belonging there. She acknowledged the mother’s love for the child and both parents’ regular attendance at access visits up to late 2013. The Guardian also raised concerns about the father’s assessed abduction risk and recommended planning for contact with the child’s adopted sibling.
The judge found that the parents’ drug addiction remained severe and insufficiently addressed, and that they had minimised the events leading to the child’s placement in care. The judge also relied on their move from Ireland and cessation of access without requesting further visits. As the mother had not put forward a case to parent Child S alone, the judge accepted the psychologist’s view that the father’s capacity should determine the assessment of reunification as a couple.
The court found the threshold under section 18(1)(c) had been met: Child S’s health, development and welfare were likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected if returned to the parents, and the child required care and protection unlikely to be provided without an order. The judge said no realistic timeframe for reunification could then be set and considered the order proportionate.
Under section 47, the court directed the agency to bring the case back in specified circumstances, including if the child became without an allocated social worker or fostering link worker for eight weeks, long-term foster matching was not carried out within 12 weeks, or the placement changed. It also directed a progress review in March 2015 and after-care planning from the child’s 16th birthday. Under section 37, the agency must provide reasonable access, taking account of the identified risks and the psychologist’s recommendation for highly supervised, structured contact, and consider sibling access. The court approved the care plan. The Guardian was discharged, with costs payable by the applicant. The respondent’s costs application was reserved until May 2014.