The District Court has refused an application by a mother and father to discharge a care order for their seven-year-old child, finding that moving the child from her foster mother could cause serious and potentially irreparable harm.
The application was made under section 22(c) of the Child Care Act 1991. The care order was made in 2009 after concerns about domestic violence, the mother’s ability to protect the child, and the effects on the child of witnessing violence. The application was lodged in 2011 and heard over two days in March 2014.
The parents described changes they had made, including parenting and other courses, and said they wanted the child returned to their care. The father said he had stopped drinking and was attending Alcoholics Anonymous. He acknowledged a relapse in 2013, when he was arrested after arriving intoxicated at the home where the mother was staying. Garda evidence described the incident; the charges were later withdrawn.
The mother said she had matured, would prioritise the child, and would not allow the father into the home if he came back drunk. Both parents accepted that a return would need professional support. They disputed aspects of the earlier violence and concerns about incidents affecting the child’s placement.
The child’s guardian ad litem considered the application premature and said unresolved issues needed to be addressed. An attachment therapist reported that the child had formed a secure attachment to the foster mother after severe early trauma and warned that a move could cause significant distress. Reports from two psychologists raised concerns that both parents had presented themselves in an overly favourable light and had not sufficiently addressed past domestic violence.
The judge accepted that the parents had made substantial efforts and could remain important in the child’s life. But the judge found that they had not fully faced the history of domestic violence or its effect on the child. The evidence from the professionals was, the judge said, overwhelming that the child’s best interests required her to remain with the foster mother and be assured that the placement was permanent.
The judge also criticised the prolonged uncertainty caused by the proceedings, which involved 16 preliminary appearances and a two-day hearing. The judge said the state’s obligation to work towards family reunification warranted examination in this case, but made no finding on whether the parents had been given adequate help with therapy and counselling, as that issue had not been sufficiently explored.
The application was refused. The court did not discharge the care order or order the child’s return to her parents.