The District Court made care orders under section 18(1)(c) of the Child Care Act 1991 for three children, to remain in force until each reaches 18. The decision followed an application by the Health Service Executive (HSE), supported by the children’s Guardian ad Litem (GAL), and the parents’ consent. The court also adjourned the question of access and made directions concerning the children’s care and reviews.
The judgment, dated 12 June 2012, identifies the children as Child 1, aged 14, Child 2, aged seven, and Child 3, aged five. Their parents, identified only as MM and PD, are not married to one another and were separately represented. The children had been in HSE care under an interim care order since 20 April 2011.
The court was told that the HSE had been involved with the family since 1998, including seeking supervision orders and providing family support. The social worker’s evidence was that the section 18 threshold was met because, without a full care order, the children’s health, development and welfare were likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected. She said the concern was not wilful abuse or neglect, but insufficient parenting capacity. The judgment records that both parents loved their children and that their impaired parenting capacity prevented them from meeting the children’s needs.
The parents’ legal representatives said their clients did not wish to give evidence or oppose the evidence and consented to the orders. They were satisfied the parents had sufficient capacity to make that decision and understood what the orders entailed. The judge found the statutory threshold met on grounds of unintentional emotional abuse and neglect, and was satisfied the HSE had made substantial but inadequate efforts to avoid the children entering care.
Under the care plans, Child 1 was to remain in residential care, while Child 2 and Child 3 were to remain in relative foster care with their paternal aunt, who had been approved as their long-term foster carer in May 2012. The HSE was to provide Child 1 with art therapy, as recommended by the GAL.
Access was left to the HSE’s discretion within section 37 and the parameters to be agreed by the parents, GAL and HSE. The court adjourned the section 37 issue to 6 November 2012 by consent, allowing the parties to negotiate a schedule. It directed that the GAL be reappointed six weeks before that date to ascertain the children’s wishes.
The court also directed re-entry and Guardian reappointment in specified circumstances, including a case remaining unallocated to a social worker or fostering link worker for six weeks, a change of placement, and after-care reviews on each child’s 16th birthday. It directed the HSE to provide appropriate services to the parents and therapeutic interventions for the children set out in the care plans. The existing GAL was discharged, and the first respondent’s solicitor’s costs application was adjourned to 6 November 2012.