The District Court granted the Health Service Executive care orders for five children until each reaches the age of majority, after finding that the statutory threshold for those orders was met. It also made a six-month supervision order for Child 6, who was living with his father under an interim care order, and granted the father custody by consent of the mother.
The judgment, dated 13 January 2012, concerned six children from a family of ten. The five children covered by the care orders were in interim HSE care. The court found that each had been neglected by their parents and that their health, development or welfare had been avoidably impaired or neglected, with a likelihood of further impairment unless they were taken into care.
The HSE had alleged a long history of neglect and physical and emotional abuse. The parents disputed aspects of the allegations. The court noted there was no medical evidence substantiating physical assault at the level alleged, and that adult siblings whose disclosures prompted HSE action did not give evidence. It considered the younger children’s statements as hearsay evidence, weighing them in light of how they were obtained. The judge’s finding was that there was clear evidence of unintentional neglect by both parents. The order was not a finding that every allegation of assault had been proved.
The court said family reunification should remain the aim where possible. It directed that access between the five children and their parents, siblings and extended family be at the HSE’s discretion. It described access by either parent at that stage as supported access at a particular venue, and said either parent could apply to court under section 37 if dissatisfied with the arrangements.
For Child 6, the court said there were reasonable grounds to believe he had been neglected and that his welfare was likely to be further impaired without supervision. The HSE sought a six-month order, which the father agreed to. The court made directions for the HSE to arrange speech and language therapy and homework assistance, and recommended continued advocacy for support from the child’s YAP worker. Custody was granted to the father with access for the mother at dates and times the parents could agree.
The court also directed annual reviews and implementation of the five children’s care plans and assessments of need, assistance for each parent to address their stated disadvantages, and a court review on 30 April 2012 of plans for Children 6, 8 and 10. It ordered re-entry if specified placement or social-work allocation changes occurred, subject to stated exceptions. The judgment directed that the guardian ad litem’s costs be assessed to that date and paid by the HSE.