The District Court made a care order under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991 for a nine-year-old child after finding that neither parent could then provide the stable, consistent parenting the child needed. The decision is dated 7 February 2013 and is reported as [2013] IEDC 5.
The Health Service Executive (HSE) had applied for the order. The judge said the child’s early life had been disrupted by instability, domestic violence, the parents’ substance misuse and the mother’s mental illness. The child had been taken into care or moved between parents on several occasions. Evidence from professionals described the child as settled in the current foster placement, but still anxious about the future and worried about the parents.
Both parents gave evidence of progress. The father said he had been sober for more than a year and attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings twice a week. The mother said she had not drunk since September 2011 and was taking her medication. The judge recognised their progress over the previous 18 months and their strong mutual bond with the child. However, the evidence was that they had not previously sustained recovery. The judge considered it too early to conclude that risks would not recur, and accepted evidence that another removal after a return home could be very harmful to the child.
The judge granted the care order to avoid a serious risk to the child’s health and welfare. The court also approved the care plan, subject to amendment because the current social worker would not be the allocated worker. The judgment does not state the order’s duration.
Under section 47, the court directed an after-care review on the child’s 17th birthday or the next business day, with a guardian ad litem to be re-appointed eight weeks beforehand. It also directed that the case be returned to court and the guardian re-appointed if specified problems arose, including a social worker or fostering link social worker not being allocated within six weeks, missed statutory reviews, termination of the identified long-term placement, or failure to complete long-term foster-carer approval within six months of the order.
Access was to be managed in line with the guardian’s report of 28 January 2013. The court highlighted the child’s wishes and the fullest possible sibling access. The guardian had recommended a gradual reduction in parental access over six months, with a review after three months; the judgment directs access in accordance with that report rather than restating those terms as a separate order.