The District Court made a care order under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991 for a 16-year-old boy until he reaches 18. The order followed a hearing on 14 November 2012. The judgment’s copy gives no date in the order itself.
The Health Service Executive (HSE) applied for the order. The boy’s mother, who was separately represented, did not oppose it. Her counsel told the court that she did not feel able to provide the support and supervision her son needed. The boy’s father was deceased.
Two social workers gave evidence in support of reports admitted by consent. They said their professional view was that the section 18(1)(c) threshold was met and continued to be met, citing the boy’s educational and psychological needs, involvement in criminal activity, absconding from home, antisocial behaviour and possible alcohol abuse. The HSE submitted that care until age 18 was the only proportionate response.
The boy was in a short-term placement with a former foster carer while awaiting sentence on District Court charges. The judgment says he was closely supervised and subject to strict bail conditions. The HSE had applied for a secure placement at two of its facilities and said it would seek private placements if that application failed. He had experienced multiple placement moves and was awaiting psychological and psychiatric assessment.
The judge said the evidence established the statutory threshold and that reasonable efforts to avoid care had been made. Those efforts had not succeeded, the judge said, amid the circumstances of the case, including serious criminal charges and the absence of a long-term secure placement in the care plan. The court noted the mother’s consent and the HSE’s acceptance of the recommendations made by the child’s Guardian ad Litem (GAL). The HSE proposed to update the care plan and work with the GAL to identify professionals to conduct forensic assessments.
The court gave the HSE discretion over access, within section 37, to maintain the parent-child and sibling relationships. It directed a review on 27 February 2013 to identify long-term care arrangements. The GAL was to remain involved until then, and the updated care plan was to be filed as approved by the GAL, addressing secure placement and therapeutic interventions. The court also directed an after-care review on the boy’s 17th birthday, with the date to be identified at the next court appearance. The mother’s legal costs application was reserved until the review concludes.