The District Court made a care order for a child, identified in the judgment as A, until A’s 18th birthday, after finding that the child’s care needs were unlikely to be met safely by the mother without continuous support that was not realistically available.
The Child and Family Agency (CFA) had applied under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991. The court made the order under section 18(1)(c), finding on the balance of probabilities that the mother’s past drug addiction and drug abuse issues were unlikely to have been fully resolved and were likely to pose a future risk to A’s health, development and welfare.
The judge also accepted expert evidence that the mother had a mild learning disability. The judgment says that such a disability alone does not determine a person’s ability to care for a child. But, based on evidence from CFA staff, the court found that even during limited, supervised contact, a high level of intervention was needed to meet A’s basic needs, including feeding, hygiene and safety. The judge found no demonstrated capacity to learn or retain those care skills, and no likelihood of improvement.
The court accepted that adequate support can help meet the challenges of parenting, but found that the level needed in this case would be “24/7” support across all aspects of care. The judge accepted evidence that the CFA or another agency could not provide that level of support, and that the family members named by the mother had said they were unwilling or unable to do so. The court concluded that such an arrangement would not be in A’s interests in the short or long term.
The mother’s evidence was accepted as given in good faith, but the judge preferred the evidence of the CFA witnesses and the Guardian ad Litem, who supported the application. The court also noted the mother’s difficulty engaging consistently with the CFA, while finding that this was not decisive by itself.
The judge said there was no demonstrable path to reunification at that time. The order commits A to care until age 18. The court made no further order on access at this stage; arrangements are to be made under section 37 of the Act. The judgment says the matter is to return to court in specified circumstances, including gaps in allocated social work support, missed statutory care reviews, a change of placement, or after-care review around A’s 16th birthday. The Guardian ad Litem was discharged that day.