The Dublin Metropolitan District Court granted Tusla a care order for Baby T until the child reaches 18, after hearing unopposed evidence from an allocated social worker and a guardian ad litem. The child’s mother did not take part in the court proceedings, though the judge said she understood the application and had told professionals she agreed Baby T should remain in foster care until adulthood.
The judgment, dated 20 April 2018, concerns a child under one year old. The court said nothing should be reported that could identify the child or any party to the proceedings. The mother is referred to as MM and the child as Baby T. The father was not identified in the judgment.
Tusla sought the order under section 18(1)(c) of the Child Care Act 1991. The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that Baby T’s health, development and welfare were likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected in the future without an order. It said the mother faced considerable difficulties and had said she did not feel able to parent the child. Baby T had been in non-relative foster care since birth, was meeting developmental milestones and had no apparent particular health needs. The judge said the child’s needs were being met to a high standard and that continuity of care and secure attachments were important.
The mother has two older children in Tusla’s care. The judgment records a history of substance misuse and homelessness, and says she was opiate-positive during pregnancy with Baby T. It also says she left hospital after the child’s caesarean birth without seeing the baby. Baby T had first been placed under an interim care order, extended until the care-order hearing. The court heard there had been no access between mother and child.
The judge approved the care plan and noted the guardian ad litem’s approval. The mother had expressed willingness to receive photographs if they could be exchanged securely, and wanted the child raised in her religion and christened. The court directed Tusla to support her if she wished to pursue visits or secure indirect contact through photographs. It also directed sibling access in line with the guardian’s recommendation. The agency must consider any extended maternal-family access in light of the mother’s views and the child’s best interests.
The order may be revisited if circumstances change and reunification is found to be in the child’s best interests. The judgment says reunification is to be considered at annual statutory care-planning meetings and that the mother may apply to discharge the order under section 22. The court also directed Tusla to provide necessary therapeutic services and to re-enter the case in specified circumstances, including if the foster placement breaks down or the case becomes unallocated for four weeks. The judgment sets out additional re-entry directions, including an after-care review near the child’s seventeenth birthday if Baby T remains in care. Dates for some re-entry directions are redacted.