The District Court granted Tusla a care order for Child A until she reaches 18, finding that her health, development and welfare were likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected without the order. The judge concluded that a supervision order or a care order of shorter duration would not adequately address the risks established in evidence.
The decision, dated 24 February 2017, followed a two-day hearing. Child A’s parents opposed the application and sought her return to their full-time care. The Guardian ad Litem supported the order, reporting that Child A wanted to remain primarily with her foster carer while keeping regular contact with her family.
The court heard evidence about support provided to the family over several years, including work with a family centre, social work intervention and help from extended family. The judge accepted that the parents had engaged with services and tried to apply the guidance they received. The evidence also described difficulties maintaining routines and responding to Child A’s needs, including her learning difficulties and weaknesses in social and practical skills.
The parents argued that their consent to earlier voluntary care was not freely given and that they had felt pressured and insufficiently supported. The judge found that they had not been coerced into the initial agreement: the options had been explained, they had time to consider them, and they later withdrew consent and contested an interim care order. The judgment nevertheless recognised the situation had been stressful and that the parents’ “black and white” thinking may have affected how they understood discussions under pressure.
The court found the statutory threshold under section 18(1)(c) of the Child Care Act 1991 was met. It also directed that access between Child A and her parents be generous and flexible, with a formal order to be considered if disagreements arose. A review was directed for one year later to assess placement stability and access.
Under section 47, Tusla was directed to provide the parents with tailored practical support and advocates at child-in-care reviews, and to arrange recommended psychological supports if they wished to engage. The agency was also directed to support Child A with counselling, decision-making, speech and language therapy, and educational supports. The case was to return to court in specified circumstances, including if the foster placement broke down or the case became unallocated to a social worker or fostering link worker for four weeks.