Judgment: 2013-12-18 · Court archive

District Court orders care for two children until adulthood

The court made care orders for two siblings after finding they were at risk of emotional harm if returned to their mother and her husband, while directing continued access and future reviews.

District Court · [2013] IEDC 21

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Health Service Executive (Applicant)
  • Child 1
  • Child 2
  • Guardian ad Litem
What

The court made care orders for two siblings after finding they were at risk of emotional harm if returned to their mother and her husband, while directing continued access and future reviews.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 30 November 2028; 25 September 2030

    The care orders run until 30 November 2028 for Child 1 and 25 September 2030 for Child 2. The judge directed that access between the children and the couple continue under section 37, citing the children’s attachments and the still achievable goal of reunification.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The District Court has made care orders for two siblings, Child 1 and Child 2, until they reach adulthood, after finding that their mother and her husband could not provide the emotional care and protection they need.

The District Court has made care orders for two siblings, Child 1 and Child 2, until they reach adulthood, after finding that their mother and her husband could not provide the emotional care and protection they need.

The Health Service Executive (HSE) brought the applications under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991. The contested hearing took place over 10 days in November and December 2013. The judgment, dated 18 December 2013, says the court found a real possibility that the children’s health, development and welfare would be impaired if they returned to the couple’s care.

The court found that the mother could meet Child 1’s physical care needs, but lacked the capacity to provide the emotional stability and protection required by either child. It also found that she was dependent on her husband and would prioritise that relationship if his wishes conflicted with the children’s needs. The judgment says the husband’s engagement with support services was limited or refused, and that his anger and resistance to guidance raised concerns about his ability to parent consistently.

The judge said the couple’s conduct and lack of engagement meant the children would be at risk of emotional abuse in their full-time care. The judgment also records that the children were settled with their current foster carers and had an affectionate bond with the couple during access visits. It notes that interruptions to access had affected Child 1’s security and trust in adults.

The court did not find that the husband had sexually abused his nephew. It said the allegation had not been established on the balance of probabilities. The husband had nevertheless been assessed as presenting a low risk of future sexual offending, even on the assumption that retrospective allegations were true.

The care orders run until 30 November 2028 for Child 1 and 25 September 2030 for Child 2. The judge directed that access between the children and the couple continue under section 37, citing the children’s attachments and the still achievable goal of reunification.

Under section 47, the HSE was directed to arrange psychological support for the foster carers and each parent, with progress reports due to the court in November 2014. The Guardian ad Litem was to be reappointed, and a review hearing was set for 10 November 2014. The order also prohibits identifying the children.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review