The District Court granted the Child and Family Agency a care order for a young child, AL, until she reaches adulthood, after finding that her health, development or welfare was likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected without the order.
Judge Brian O’Shea delivered the judgment at Wexford District Court on 13 November 2018. The child’s mother, BK, and biological father, EL, were legally represented but absent. Both consented to the care order. EL was not a guardian and had a separate application to be appointed as one.
The court heard evidence from a social worker who adopted a report on the family’s history and the child’s needs. The judgment records concerns including substance misuse, alcohol abuse and domestic violence. It says the child tested positive for cocaine at birth and was monitored for withdrawal symptoms for ten days. She had been in foster care since she was 10 days old.
The judge found that the parents did not fully understand or have the capacity to meet the child’s emotional and psychological needs. The court said the statutory threshold for a care order was met and considered whether a supervision order could suffice. It concluded that a care order was appropriate, necessary and proportionate. The judgment does not determine EL’s guardianship application.
The order commits the child to the Agency’s care for the duration of her minority. Access, including sibling and family access, is at the Agency’s discretion and is to be supervised unless the Agency decides supervision is unnecessary. The court also dispensed with the parents’ consent for specified medical treatment and travel documents or reasonable travel outside the jurisdiction, subject to written notice at least two weeks in advance of travel.
The Agency must conduct annual reviews, support the foster carers and arrange an aftercare review, plan and worker by the child’s 16th birthday. The case was listed at Gorey District Court on 21 February 2019 to review implementation and the proposed care plan. EL’s guardianship application could also be considered that day if he attended to move it. The judgment states that the court was not retaining seisin of the matter.