The District Court made care orders for two young children until each reaches 18, finding that their health, development or welfare was likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected if they returned to their mother as sole primary carer at this time.
The Child and Family Agency applied under section 18(1) of the Child Care Act 1991. The mother opposed the application and sought the children’s return to her full-time care. The children, aged three and two when the application was described, had been in the Agency’s care since 2013, initially voluntarily at their mother’s request and later under interim care orders.
The Agency alleged a history of unintentional neglect and said further support could not reduce the risk sufficiently. Its concerns included supervision, household routine and hygiene, nutrition, budgeting, and inconsistent engagement with parenting supports. The mother admitted many of the Agency’s stated facts but disputed or qualified others. She argued that she could parent with suitable support, that stress had prompted her original request for voluntary care, and that the assessment of her needs had not been adequate to tailor that support.
After hearing evidence over three days, the judge found that the mother had been offered significant support, including a family support worker, which she declined. The judge also found that the supported housing project was not the best fit for a parent with learning difficulties, and that an earlier cognitive assessment might have helped identify the support she needed. The mother did not continue with a diagnostic adaptive living assessment, leaving the precise services she needed unclear.
The judge accepted professional evidence that the mother could not, on her own, provide good enough parenting, despite services including Marte Meo therapy. The court found that the section 18 threshold was met for both children and that a supervision order would not address their welfare needs. It made care orders under section 18(1)(c) until each child reaches 18, describing that duration as proportionate on the evidence.
The order directs that the mother’s access be arranged under section 37, with recognition of her relationship with the children and continued home-based support hoped for during visits at her home. The Agency was directed to facilitate advocacy for her in access discussions and statutory care reviews.
The case must return to court in specified circumstances, including if either child’s placement breaks down, a proposed placement change is being considered, or statutory care planning requirements are not met. The court also directed a return to consider the children’s service needs and, if they remain in care, an after-care review near each child’s 16th birthday. The judgment prohibits reporting information, including return dates, that could identify the children or any party.