The District Court rejected Tusla’s application for a care order until a child reached 18, finding that the evidence did not establish the statutory threshold for that order. It instead made a one-year supervision order.
The judgment, dated 8 October 2014, concerned a child aged three and a half. The child had been in Tusla’s care for about 18 months after the mother signed a voluntary reception-into-care form in February 2013. Interim care orders were later granted and extended by consent.
Tusla argued that the child had suffered past emotional neglect and would be at risk of neglect if returned to the mother. Its concerns included her inconsistent engagement with services, anger-management difficulties, and cannabis use. The mother disputed that the child had been neglected or that future harm was likely. She said she was willing to engage with counselling and other supports, and would accept a supervision order.
The judge noted evidence that the mother loved the child, had stable accommodation and had cared for the child during the first 18 months. The Guardian ad Litem and access worker described a warm relationship and positive contact. The judge also recorded that there was no direct evidence of cannabis addiction, a chaotic lifestyle linked to drug use, or mental-health issues impairing the mother’s care. The mother’s evidence about the period leading to the child entering care was accepted.
The court was not satisfied that the child had been ill-treated, neglected or emotionally abused in the mother’s care, or that the child’s health, development or welfare had been avoidably impaired. It acknowledged some risk arising from the mother’s difficulties with engagement, self-regulation and consistency, but found that the evidence did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that future avoidable harm was likely without a care order.
The judge also questioned whether the mother’s initial consent to voluntary care was truly voluntary, given the presence of social workers and a garda when she was vulnerable. The judgment said the evidence did not make clear whether lesser interventions had been considered. The judge concluded that a care order, particularly one lasting until the child turned 18, would be disproportionate on the evidence presented.
The court ordered supervision for one year, finding it sufficient to address the child’s need for care and protection. The judgment noted that Tusla could return to court if the supervision order was not followed or circumstances raised further concerns.