The District Court ordered interim care for four children after finding reasonable cause to believe they had suffered consistent neglect while in their parents’ care and were likely to suffer neglect if returned at that time.
The decision, dated 7 February 2017, followed a four-day substantive hearing on an application under section 17 of the Child Care Act 1991. The children were already in voluntary care. A separate application for a care order under section 18 had not been given a hearing date.
The parents agreed that interim care was necessary for the two younger children, but sought the return of the two older children to their father. The judge declined to return the older children, finding that a comprehensive parenting capacity assessment of their father was urgently needed first. The Guardian ad Litem supported interim care for all four children and told the court that, insofar as they could express their views, the children wished to return home.
The judge found that both parents shared responsibility for the children’s care and that their basic needs had not been consistently met. The findings included unsafe hygiene and supervision conditions, missed medical appointments, and insufficient engagement with support services. The court also found that the mother had abused drugs and that the father had not addressed the impact on the children; it found his use of alcohol careless enough to put their welfare at risk. The judge accepted evidence from a crèche worker about Child 2’s presentation and its effect on the child’s ability to engage with peers.
The order was intended to allow the Child and Family Agency to arrange a parenting capacity assessment of the father, including a cognitive assessment; provide both parents with a roadmap for family reunification; support the mother’s addiction treatment; and discuss with the parents and Guardian what the children should be told about their care status. The judge said the parents were good with the children during access and that the children were bonded to them, while stressing that separate assessments of each parent were needed because their personal relationship had ended in 2016.
The court proposed an interim care order and asked the parties to inform it if they agreed on the order’s duration. It adjourned the section 18 care order application. The judgment does not state the agreed duration or set a hearing date for that application.