The District Court made a care order for Child 5 until she turns 18, finding that her welfare was likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected unless an order was made under section 18(1)(c) of the Child Care Act 1991.
The judgment, dated 5 February 2012, followed a nine-day hearing on the HSE’s application. The child, then 14 months old, had been in HSE care since her birth in October 2010. Interim care orders had been made with the parents’ consent, and they had supervised access three times a week.
The court acknowledged evidence that both parents behaved warmly and caringly during access and that the child had a secondary attachment to them. It also considered the parents’ opposition to long-term care and their arguments that they had not been given a fair chance to challenge sexual abuse allegations made by older children in Country 1, and that the assessments relied too heavily on that country’s earlier proceedings.
The parents denied physical and sexual abuse. Their counsel challenged the process by which the older children’s disclosures emerged in therapeutic sessions and argued that the parents should have been told about the allegations earlier. The court described the absence of forensic validation and the late notification as unfortunate. It said any breach of administrative or procedural rights in Country 1 was a matter for proceedings there and did not prejudice the parents in this case.
The court found that the threshold for a care order was met. It said there was ample evidence of serious neglect and that the older children had been sexualised while in their parents’ care. It also accepted the professional evidence about the contact sexual abuse disclosures, finding that the weight given to the children’s statements was appropriate despite the absence of a later forensic validation process. The court said it could rely on the earlier child care decisions in Country 1, where the parents had been represented.
The court declined the parents’ requests to adjourn for an independent assessment that had not been completed. It found they had had ample time to obtain a second opinion on the risk assessments. The judgment also found that the parents had given false information to an Irish maternity hospital in an effort to avoid the child being taken into care.
Under directions made pursuant to section 47, access between Child 5 and her parents, siblings and extended family was left to HSE discretion within the parameters of section 37 and was to be supervised. The case must return to court if no social worker is allocated for four continuous weeks or if the existing foster placement is to change; the Guardian ad Litem is to be reappointed in either event.