The District Court made a care order for Child 1 until the age of 18 after finding that the child’s health, development and welfare had suffered avoidable impairment and that the mother did not have sufficient parental capacity to provide appropriate care at the time of the hearing. The order is subject to a full review in two years to assess the possibility of family reunification.
The Health Service Executive (HSE) had argued that the mother’s mental health difficulties affected her ability to provide a psychologically healthy experience of parenting and to support the child’s development. Its witnesses said a supervision order and support services would not adequately address the risks of returning the child to her care at that stage.
The mother accepted that her behaviour towards professionals in 2010 was affected by being without medication, isolation from family and distress about her accommodation. She said she had addressed her mental health and housing circumstances and sought reunification under a supervision order. She disputed the professionals’ assessments and opposed access arrangements at an access centre, saying she wanted the child returned to her care.
The court considered evidence from a psychiatrist, psychologist, two social workers, the mother and the Guardian ad Litem (GAL), as well as reports. It found that the mother had made efforts to address her mental health, housing and isolation, but that her perception of why the child entered care remained largely unchanged. The court also found that her unwillingness to attend access unless the child was returned suggested only marginal change in the rigid thinking pattern described by the psychiatrist.
The judge said the diagnosis did not itself preclude parenting, but found that the mother’s difficulties had affected her parenting in this case. The court accepted the psychologist’s evidence that returning the child under a supervision order, even with support, would detrimentally affect the child’s welfare at that time. It also recognised that the mother remained central to the child’s life and that their connection mattered to the child’s identity and emotional security.
The order runs until the child turns 18 because the court found a shorter order would not provide the needed security and stability. It directed a full review in two years to consider the mother’s progress and the child’s needs. A separate review was set for 6 February 2013 concerning the long-term foster placement and an updated care plan. The order also provides for re-entry in specified circumstances, including a placement change or a period without an allocated social worker or fostering link worker.
Access is at the HSE’s discretion under section 37 and must meet the needs of both the child and mother. The judge expressed hope that the mother would engage in supported access, initially at an access centre. The HSE was directed to provide appropriate therapeutic services to the mother and to ensure the child receives interventions identified in the care plans.