The District Court granted an 18-year care order for Child 5 on 8 October 2012, finding that the child’s health, development and welfare would suffer if an order were not made.
The Health Service Executive (HSE) applied under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991. Child 5 had been in HSE care since an interim care order was made on 28 March 2011 and extended six times. The child’s mother and father did not attend the hearing, but their legal representative was present. The judge was satisfied that both had been properly served and that the case should proceed in the child’s interests.
The court heard evidence from a social worker, a drug liaison midwife, the parents’ GP and the child’s Guardian ad Litem (GAL). The social worker described concerns about the parents’ past and ongoing drug misuse and accounts given by Child 5’s older siblings of neglect and emotional abuse. These included exposure to drug use, being left alone and poor school attendance. The midwife gave evidence that the mother had disclosed heroin use during pregnancy and that Child 5 was born prematurely with neonatal abstinence syndrome requiring medical treatment. The GP gave evidence about the parents’ treatment and drug test results.
The GAL supported a care order for its full duration. She considered that the parents could not care for the children while using drugs and supported Child 5’s foster placement with two siblings. The court had also admitted statements by an older sibling under section 23 and considered them in reaching its decision.
The judge found the section 18(1)(b) and (c) threshold criteria were met. In making the order, the court cited the parents’ history and ongoing poly-substance abuse, the mother’s drug use during pregnancy, both parents’ lack of sustained stability in treatment, the history of neglect and emotional abuse of older children, and the absence of evidence that the parents could provide consistent care in the foreseeable future.
The court approved the filed care plan and proposed foster placement, ordered access between Child 5 and the parents under section 37, and directed the HSE to implement recommendations in a September 2012 social work review. It discharged the GAL, with costs payable by the HSE. Under section 47, the case is to be re-entered and the GAL reappointed four weeks before re-entry if the child has no allocated social worker or fostering link worker for four weeks, the foster placement changes, or an after-care review is due on the child’s 17th birthday.