The District Court made care orders for Child 5 and Child 6 until each reaches 18, after finding the threshold under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991 met. It also approved their care plans and directed a court review for 28 May 2014.
The Health Service Executive (HSE) had sought full care orders. The court heard the application on full proof over two days. The mother initially contested the orders through her solicitor, but on the second day she attended and consented, saying she could not care for either child at that time. Child 5’s father also consented, subject to access being arranged. Child 6’s father was served but did not take part.
Child 5, then aged one year and seven months, had been placed in HSE care under an interim order in February 2012. The court found that she had suffered unintentional neglect while in her parents’ care, including insufficient sustenance that led to hospital treatment for poor weight gain and failure to thrive. It found that missed medical appointments delayed identification and treatment. The court also found that the mother’s continuing substance addiction, unstable accommodation and difficulty engaging with support affected her ability to care for both children. Child 6, then eight months old, had been placed in voluntary care shortly after birth and was living with Child 5 in foster care.
The children were too young to express their views. Their Guardian Ad Litem supported care orders until age 18 and backed the care plans. The mother’s legal representative and the Guardian Ad Litem had sought a review after one year. The judge concluded that shorter orders would not provide the children with long-term security. The judgment said the HSE must review the potential for reunification if the mother resolved her housing difficulties, achieved a substance-free lifestyle, established consistent access and engaged with therapeutic and other supports.
The court directed access between the children and their parents, siblings and extended family to be arranged by the HSE, having regard to the children’s welfare and the statutory framework. It also directed the HSE to provide the mother with therapeutic supports. The case was to return to court in November 2013, or earlier on notice if the fostering committee met sooner, in connection with the long-term foster placement process. Further re-entry directions apply if specified care or placement arrangements change or an annual review is not carried out.
The mother’s application for legal costs was refused. The second respondent’s costs application was adjourned for legal submissions.