The District Court granted care orders for Child 1 and Child 2 until 15 August 2020 and 30 April 2030 respectively, finding that each child’s health, development and welfare would suffer without an order. Both children remain in the care of their respective foster carers, with reunification to be considered at annual care reviews.
The orders followed an eight-day hearing held over two periods in September and November 2012. The Health Service Executive (HSE) sought care orders under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991. The court said the evidence established the statutory threshold for both children and that the orders were proportionate.
In its findings, the court cited a history of neglect, parental drug and alcohol misuse, domestic violence, difficulty engaging with support services and the parents’ lack of insight into the children’s needs. For Child 1, the court referred to school absence and lateness, poor hygiene and inadequate food. For Child 2, it cited neglect before and immediately after birth, including the mother’s drug use during pregnancy and sudden cessation shortly before the birth. The court said the mother had not shown the ability or commitment to provide consistent care, and that the father had also not shown he could sustain consistent parenting, despite more recent engagement with services and positive access visits.
The court directed that access between the mother and both children be at the HSE’s discretion, citing her limited engagement with social work services and concerns raised about her mental health and conduct during recent visits. The father’s access was also placed at the HSE’s discretion, with consideration to be given to his recent engagement, a forensic psychologist’s recommendations and positive reports of his visits.
The father was appointed joint guardian of Child 2 with the mother. His application for sole custody of both children was struck out as moot, with no order made.
The court approved Child 2’s current foster placement, subject to final approval after the matching process, and reserved approval of Child 1’s proposed placement pending further consideration. That followed evidence that the HSE had received a complaint concerning Child 1’s foster placement. The court ordered information about the complaint and its investigation to be provided to the father and the children’s guardian ad litem. It also directed an immediate risk assessment and safety plan for Child 1, plus a contingency plan in case a move became necessary if the complaint was upheld.
The case was scheduled for further consideration on 20 February 2013 and a care progress review on 20 November 2015. The court recommended drug treatment and psychological assessment for the mother, addiction counselling and a parenting course for the father, with HSE assistance.