The District Court made care orders for four children after finding that the conditions for orders under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991 had been established in each case. The court also approved the care plans presented to it.
The decision followed evidence from psychologists, a social worker, the children’s guardian ad litem and the third named respondent. The first and second named respondents were absent. The third respondent attended with an interpreter and was represented. The mother and second respondent had not instructed their solicitors for some time, according to the judgment.
Psychologists described the two older children as having experienced trauma and neglect before entering care. They said both had settled well in their placements and wanted to remain there. Their evidence supported long-term foster care and said contact with their mother or other birth relatives should not take place at present. They considered sibling contact important, with appropriate support and management.
The third respondent denied allegations in the reports and evidence, including violence and abuse. The court found him evasive and lacking in credibility. It said that, even on the most benign view of his involvement, serious neglect and abuse had occurred while he lived with the children and he had done little or nothing to prevent it or seek help. The court concluded that this indicated he was not suitable to be the sole parent of Child 4 at that time.
The guardian ad litem supported the Health Service Executive’s application for long-term care orders for all four children. He supported suspending contact with the mother and second respondent until they engaged with the HSE. He said contact between the third respondent and Child 4 was appropriate at its existing level of one hour every two weeks. Any increase could be considered by the HSE under section 37 and through child-in-care reviews. These views were evidence and recommendations; the judgment’s operative order does not separately set out each contact arrangement.
Under section 47, the court included the guardian’s recommendations at paragraph 8.8 of his final report as terms of the order. It directed that he remain in place for two weeks from the order and be reappointed 12 weeks before the review mentioned in that report. The court also made an order for his costs. The judgment raised concern about poor communication among professionals involved in the case.