The District Court ordered that a child be committed to the care of the Child and Family Agency until age 18, after finding that she suffered physical abuse, neglect, emotional abuse and sexual abuse while in her mother’s care. The court made the full care order under section 18(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Child Care Act 1991.
The Agency had sought the order for the duration of the child’s minority. The mother, the only named respondent, denied harming the child and denied the allegations. The court said it was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the statutory grounds for the order were met and that the child was unlikely to receive the care and protection she required from her mother.
The judgment records a series of concerns that brought the child to social workers’ attention, including referrals about the mother’s drinking. In 2012, a school principal made a child protection notification after a neighbour reported that the child had been distressed and left alone at home. The court found that the child had been locked in the house for three days, was hungry and unwashed, and that the mother was intoxicated when social workers and gardaí visited. The child was subsequently taken into care under emergency and interim orders.
The court also found that the child made disclosures of physical, emotional and sexual abuse. It accepted her hearsay evidence after considering recorded interviews, contemporaneous notes, witness testimony and an independent forensic psychologist’s report. The judge said the psychologist found little cause for concern about the veracity of the child’s evidence. The court gave substantial weight to the hearsay, while noting that the child had not been cross-examined.
The judgment distinguished the purposes and limits of the interviews and assessments. Garda interviews were conducted to achieve best evidence in a criminal investigation, not to assess credibility. The court said it could place no reliance on the Assessment Clinic’s purported credibility assessment, finding that it had not demonstrated forensic analytical tools or psychological input. It also noted no evidence of a comprehensive joint agency response involving the Clinic and gardaí.
The care order is accompanied by directions concerning contact, support and review. Contact with the mother may occur within the statutory framework and at the child’s pace; sibling and wider family contact may also be supported in line with her welfare. The Agency was directed to provide necessary therapeutic services and enable life story work at the child’s pace. The Guardian ad Litem was reappointed, with the case to return to court in specified circumstances, including if the placement is not matched as long-term within three months or if required social work visits or reviews do not take place. The judge proposed a listing for after-care review and planning on the child’s 17th birthday.
The judgment also records a prohibition on publishing or broadcasting evidence from the proceedings, subject to the stated exception for the Child Law Reporting Project. It says the prohibition may be lifted on application to the court.