The District Court has dismissed an application by two parents to discharge a care order for their sons, finding that returning the children to their care at this time would not serve their best interests.
The order, made in November 2004, covered Child 1 and Child 2, who were born in 2000 and 2002. The children had been in the care of the Health Service Executive (HSE) since February 2003. The parents first brought their application in October 2008. After hearings spread across several years, the court formally dismissed it on 1 July 2011.
The parents argued that they had rehabilitated themselves and were now capable of caring for the boys. They questioned why two of their other children had been returned to them while Child 1 and Child 2 remained in care. They also challenged how access had been managed and said a phased return could take up to two years.
The HSE sought dismissal, arguing that the boys were settled in their placement and should remain there. The court heard evidence from the parents, social workers, the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) and an agreed expert psychologist. The psychologist and GAL supported the children staying in their current placement. The judge said the evidence was that the boys had formed a primary attachment to their foster parents, and that returning them then would be seriously damaging.
The judge accepted that the parents had made substantial progress and described them as good enough parents. The decision, however, turned on the children’s circumstances and welfare, rather than the parents’ present capacity alone. The court said that a full care order required the HSE to support the children’s relationship with their foster carers while maintaining their relationship with their birth parents.
The judgment criticised the length of the proceedings, which the judge said should have been listed for a block of days and concluded more promptly. The court found no evidence of significant adverse effect on the children from the delay, while warning that such delay could threaten placement stability and cause stress to parents.
Although refusing to discharge the care order, the court issued directions under section 47. It directed the HSE to prepare an access plan in consultation with the psychologist, consider a greater role for the parents in the boys’ lives, and work to improve the relationship between the parents and foster carers. The plan was to be made available to the court. The judgment said the matter should return to court if the case became unallocated.