The District Court made a care order for Child 1 until the child’s 18th birthday after both parents consented to an application by the Health Service Executive (HSE). The decision was delivered on 3 October 2012 under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991.
The court heard evidence from a social worker, an access worker and the guardian ad litem (GAL). It also considered documents submitted by the HSE, an undated family support worker report and a GAL report dated 27 September 2012.
The judge found that neither parent could then provide the stability and consistency the child required. On the balance of probabilities, the court found that the child’s welfare had been neglected by each parent and that the child’s health, development and welfare had been avoidably impaired or neglected. The judge concluded that the child was unlikely to receive the necessary care and protection unless an order was made.
The judgment recorded concerns about the mother’s past care of the child, drug and alcohol use, inconsistent engagement with agencies, and difficulties maintaining contact and following professional recommendations. Regarding the father, the court cited concerns about assessing risks to the child, meeting the child’s day-to-day needs, historic drug use and health difficulties that prevented him from providing full-time care. These were the court’s findings in support of the order.
The judge said the GAL supported the application and was satisfied with the care plan. The court also acknowledged both parents’ wish to remain involved in the child’s life. It encouraged future contact between the child and father, and recommended that steps be taken to resume and maintain contact with members of the father’s extended family, particularly his brother. The judgment said steps needed for the mother to recommence access had been discussed.
The court found a care order until age 18 to be in the child’s best interests and proportionate, with no other available order meeting the child’s needs. It directed that access be in accordance with section 37 of the 1991 Act. A care order review was scheduled for 7 May 2014, focused on the child’s educational progress and any identified needs; the judge said it would review the order’s operation, not reconsider whether it should continue. The GAL was to be reappointed four weeks before that review.
The court also directed that the case be returned to court if the child had no allocated social worker or fostering link social worker for six weeks, care reviews were not held on time, or the placement broke down or changed. The GAL was discharged with an order for costs, and the section 37 application listed that day was struck out.