The District Court granted a care order for Child 2 until her 18th birthday after finding that the statutory threshold under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991 was met. The court said her health, development and welfare would suffer if an order were not made.
The Health Service Executive (HSE) had applied for the order. Child 2 had been in HSE care since an emergency care order was made on 3 June 2011, which the court said had been extended 19 times. The mother consented to the full-duration care order at the hearing on 10 December 2012. The Guardian ad Litem supported an order for the same duration. The decision was delivered ex tempore that day and circulated in writing on 18 December 2012.
The court cited the mother’s neglect, including leaving Child 2 home alone, short of food and missing school; her admitted physical and emotional abuse; and her mental health and psychological problems and their impact on the child. These were the court’s stated reasons for the order. The judge also considered the services and support offered to the mother, including assessments, psychological services, help sourcing accommodation and home help, and concluded the decision was proportionate.
The evidence included the social worker’s account of Child 2’s disclosures of physical abuse and of a video the child said her mother had made when she was three and shown to strangers when she was six. The mother denied that the video existed, according to submissions recorded in the judgment. The social worker said nine hours of recordings were later handed to the social work department; nothing sexual was discovered in them, and the HSE investigation into the disclosure remained at an early stage. The judgment does not state a finding that the alleged video existed.
In a separate section 47 decision, the court ordered the mother to produce the video or recording referred to in the child’s 20 September 2012 disclosure. The court said the child’s interests took priority in the circumstances. The source does not state whether the recording was produced.
The court directed access under section 37, taking account of the child’s age, disclosures and the stress access caused her. The social worker said access was scheduled to restart under full supervision at an HSE access centre; the Guardian ad Litem recommended short, task-centred visits that could end if the mother behaved inappropriately or frighteningly. The judge also reserved approval of an amended care plan until 28 January 2013, when the case was to be re-listed. The order set out circumstances that would trigger the case’s re-entry and directed an after-care review on the child’s 16th birthday.