The District Court granted the Health Service Executive (HSE) a care order for Child 1 until her 18th birthday, after finding that her health, development and welfare had been, and were likely to be, avoidably impaired or neglected. The order followed a three-day hearing from 20 to 22 May 2013 under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991.
The judgment says Child 1, born in August 1997, had been in HSE care since May 2012 and was then in a special care unit. The court rejected the mother’s preliminary argument that a section 18 application could not proceed while the child was receiving special care, finding that the care and protection available under a care order was greater than the protection afforded by special care detention.
The mother opposed an order lasting until age 18 and sought Child 1’s return to her care. The father, who had been served, did not appear. Child 1’s Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) supported a full-duration order, although Child 1 told the judge she wanted to return to her mother and complete her education.
The judge heard evidence from a social worker, two workers at a care facility, the mother, the GAL and the mother’s brother, and considered medical reports. The social worker cited the mother’s mental health difficulties, past violence in the family and concerns about the child’s wellbeing if returned home. The mother described domestic violence by the father, her mental health history and recovery from alcohol addiction. She disputed that the HSE could provide adequate care and described risks the child had faced while in care, including an allegation of rape during a period when she was missing. That allegation was presented as the mother’s evidence; the judgment does not make a finding that rape occurred.
The court found that Child 1 had experienced domestic violence and multiple changes of carer, and had been exposed to her parents’ alcohol and drug misuse. It found she had complex care needs arising from experiences with both parents and the HSE. The judge said the mother loved her daughter and had gone to great lengths to protect her, but did not have the capacity to provide adequate care or protection at that time. The court also found the father had caused significant risk and harm during the child’s placement with him in 2011 and 2012, and later refused to play a significant role in her life.
The judge accepted the GAL’s concerns about whether the State and HSE had met the child’s needs, noting that HIQA had agreed to investigate the case. The order requires ongoing access between Child 1 and her mother. The HSE must bring the case back to court if the child is without an allocated social worker or fostering link worker for three weeks, if her placement changes, or if a statutory review is not carried out. A further review was directed for 14 June 2013 to consider revised care and transition plans and receive an update on the HIQA investigation.