The District Court granted a care order until a child reaches 18, finding that the child’s health, development and welfare would suffer without an order. The ruling followed a two-day hearing on the Child & Family Agency’s application under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991.
The child, aged 11 at the time of the hearing, was already in care. The judgment says the child entered care under a voluntary agreement in December 2009, was reunited with their mother in mid-2010 under a supervision order, and returned to care under another voluntary agreement in early 2011. After the mother revoked that agreement in early 2013, the court granted an interim care order, which had been extended six times.
The mother opposed an order lasting until the child turned 18. She proposed an order for two years, saying this would allow her to engage with counselling and addiction supports and make progress towards parenting the child. The child’s Guardian ad Litem supported an order for the full duration. The court heard evidence from agency social and access workers, a clinical psychologist, the mother and the guardian.
The judge said the mother had made some progress with emotional, psychological and addiction difficulties, but not enough to resume the child’s care. The court accepted the agency’s submitted findings of fact as proven. It cited the mother’s difficulty managing emotional stress, acknowledged alcohol misuse, limited engagement with support services and a significant risk of future neglect if the child returned to her care. The judgment said there was no evidence of recent alcohol misuse, but also no evidence that the addiction had been properly addressed.
The judge said the two most recent years in care had not brought sufficient progress, noted that two earlier reunification plans had not succeeded, and found the order proportionate and in the child’s best interests. The court approved the care plan and directed that access between mother and child remain at the HSE’s discretion, taking account of the supports needed and the reported pace and frequency of visits.
The judgment also directs that the case be returned to court in specified circumstances, including a change in foster placement, a gap in allocated social work support of six weeks, a missed statutory child-in-care review, or failure to complete long-term foster-care matching within 16 weeks. Reunification is to be considered at each review. The agency was asked to consider how supports could be provided in light of the mother’s psychological needs. Further directions cover an after-care worker and a court review around the child’s sixteenth birthday, as well as a review of progress in care in early 2015.