The District Court made a six-month supervision order for Child 2 and Child 3, finding that the statutory threshold for intervention was met and that an order was in their best interests. It adjourned the parents’ access and guardianship issues to allow progress on housing and further mediation or dialogue.
The Health Service Executive (HSE) had applied for the supervision order. The mother opposed it and raised concerns about the children’s accommodation with their father and his partner, the amount and quality of her access, and delays in receiving information about the children. She also wanted more time with Child 1, including the possibility of overnight stays or outings.
A HSE social worker told the court that the younger children had severe speech and language delays, concerns about nutrition, and poor school attendance while in their mother’s care. The worker described the parents’ interactions in front of the children as extremely negative and said they affected the children’s health, development and welfare. She was generally satisfied with the care provided by the father and his partner, but noted their cramped housing. The HSE had made representations to the Housing Authority and the family was seeking alternative accommodation.
The mother acknowledged a mild intellectual disability and said she mistrusted the HSE. The father did not give evidence on the supervision application and supported the HSE’s application. A guardian ad litem (GAL) supported supervision and gave evidence about the children’s wishes and feelings.
The court directed the HSE to provide the mother with an advocate to help her take part in meetings and discussions about the children and access. It also directed the HSE to arrange a case conference as soon as practicable and facilitate dialogue involving the mother, her advocate, the social worker, the father and the GAL. The parents were directed to attend assisted mediation to develop a parenting plan that respects the children’s therapeutic needs.
Access was to remain supervised, with its frequency left to the HSE’s discretion under section 37 of the Child Care Act 1991. The court did not decide the adjourned custody, access or guardianship applications. It listed them for mention on 1 December 2011, when the interim care order concerning Child 1 was due to expire, with a view to fixing a January hearing if mediation or dialogue did not produce a mutually acceptable solution supported by the GAL.