The District Court ordered that a young child remain in the care of the Child and Family Agency (Tusla) until age 18, finding that a shorter order would not provide the stability the child needed. The court also set a review for 8 November 2018 and made directions concerning the child’s placement, services and parental participation.
The case concerned the duration of a care order under section 18(1)(c) of the Child Care Act 1991. Both parents accepted that the statutory threshold for care had been met and that neither could care for the child at the time. They agreed the child was appropriately placed with foster carers but sought an order limited to three years, saying they wanted time to address substance misuse and build a relationship with the child through access. Tusla and the child’s Guardian ad Litem sought an order lasting until age 18.
The child had been in care since infancy and had lived in the same foster placement. The judgment records that the parents had not seen the child for about three years and had not established consistent access. The parents’ histories included substance misuse and homelessness. The court also noted their acceptance that they could not presently provide care, and their concerns about the length of the order and the child’s future.
The judge found that a long-term order was necessary to provide continuity and security in the child’s established placement. The decision relied on professional evidence that uncertainty could harm the child’s stability, as well as the child’s attachments to the foster carers and the work still needed before child-centred access could be restored. The court said the parents’ rights would continue under the order and that the possibility of them playing a role in the child’s life should remain open if they achieved sustained stability.
The court approved the care plan and directed Tusla to facilitate reasonable access with the child’s welfare as the primary consideration, provide the parents with support to participate in statutory reviews, and arrange necessary remedial and therapeutic services for the child. At the November 2018 review, the court directed that progress in the placement, parental recovery and screening, attendance at care-planning meetings, and engagement with professionals and access planning be considered.
The order also allows the parents to apply under section 22 to vary or discharge it if they remain stable in recovery and there are no further complicating child-protection issues. Tusla must return the case to court in specified circumstances, including a material change or breakdown in the foster placement, gaps in assigned social-work or fostering-link workers, or failure to meet the regulatory review framework. A further court return was directed for 4 January 2029 if the child remained in care, to assess after-care needs.
The judgment is dated 6 July 2017. It prohibits reporting or broadcasting information that could identify the child or any party to the proceedings.