The District Court made a care order committing a child to the care of the Child and Family Agency until the child’s 18th birthday, finding that the child had experienced circumstantial neglect and remained at risk of avoidable impairment or neglect without state care.
The court found the threshold met under sections 18(1)(a) and (c) of the Child Care Act 1991, but not under section 18(1)(b). It said the neglect resulted from the mother’s serious health difficulties and was not intentional or wilful. On the facts, the mother was not in a position to choose to avoid the circumstances, the judge found.
The case concerned a child identified in the judgment only as Child A. The Agency sought a care order for the child’s minority. The mother contested the application and sought a shorter order, saying she hoped to regain her health and resume parenting. The child was represented by a Guardian ad Litem, who supported an order until the child turned 18. The child did not wish to speak directly to the judge.
The child had been in Agency care under interim care orders since 2014. The final hearing included evidence from Agency witnesses, the mother and the Guardian ad Litem, as well as reports including medical and social work material. The hearing was adjourned after the social worker said the parenting capacity assessment was incomplete without a feedback session with the mother. The assessment was later completed and further evidence heard.
The court described the mother’s history of mental health difficulties and relapses, and accepted her psychiatrist’s evidence that her health remained a work in progress. It found the child had experienced periods of instability and insecurity, including when the mother was hospitalised and extended family cared for the child. The court also found that the mother and child shared affection, and that the child wished to remain in the current relative foster placement while a minor and to see the mother at times suited to the child’s commitments.
In making the order for the full period, the court said stability and security were needed and noted the Agency’s legal duty to consider family reunification and the child’s welfare at statutory reviews. It directed the Agency to provide support including peer therapy if the child wished, family therapy when mother and child were ready, life-story work at the child’s pace, and help with access. Contact arrangements must take account of the child’s wishes and best interests; the court recommended regular contact and allowed parties to apply if dissatisfied with arrangements.
The court also ordered re-entry and Guardian ad Litem appointment in specified circumstances, including an unallocated social worker for four weeks or a change in foster placement. It directed that after-care planning begin by the child’s 16th birthday. The Guardian ad Litem was to remain appointed until a date agreed with the Agency to communicate the order to the child.