Court grants Care Order for three children due to parental unfitness and failure to provide adequate care.

[2018] IEDC 08

AN CHUIRT DUICHE

DUBLIN METROPOLITAN DISTRICT

APPLICANT

TUSLA, THE CHILD AND FAMILY AGENCY

AND

RESPONDENTS

MM AND AN

In the matter of Child C, D AND A,

Care Order Application under Section 18 Child Care Act, 1991

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an application by Tusla, the Child and Family Agency (hereafter the Agency) for a Care Order in respect of three children

who are aged thirteen years, ten years and eight years old respectively and will be referred to throughout this decision as C, D and A

as nothing must be reported concerning this case which would serve to identify any of the children or the parents who are the

subject of these proceedings.

2. C’s father is deceased but D and A’s father resides the children’s mother. The couple are unmarried and live in a committed

relationship with their two younger children who remain in their care. C, D and A have one older sibling who is now an adult.

3. Neither of the Respondent parents participated in the proceedings for the hearing but I am satisfied that they were duly served

with notice of the proceedings and are fully aware of the nature and duration of the Orders being sought by the Agency.

4. The child’s separate interests in the proceedings were highlighted by the Guardian ad Litem, NR.

5. I am satisfied that the Dublin Metropolitan District has jurisdiction to hear this application.

Background

6. C was received into voluntary care shortly after his first birthday, D came into care at six months old when An Garda Síochana

executed emergency powers under section 12 of the Child Care Act, 1991 and thereafter the parents entered into a voluntary care

arrangement. A was taken into care at birth pursuant to an Emergency Care Order under section 13 of the Child Care Act, 1991

following a pre-birth Case Conference and thereafter the parents entered into a voluntary arrangement.

7. C and an older sibling (who is not the subject matter of these proceedings and is cared for in a kinship placement) were signed into

voluntary care by the Respondent mother. Within a matter of weeks C was removed from voluntary care by the respondent mother

and placed by her with a kinship carer along with his older sibling. The kinship carer could not cope with both children and so it was

agreed that C would be placed in short term foster placement while a Family Welfare Conference was held to identify a suitable family

placement for C. When such a placement could not be identified C was placed in his current placement and has remained in this

placement for some 10 years.

8. When D was born, the Agency sought and was granted a Supervision Order to monitor his care arising from concerns regarding the

mother’s capacity to care for D. During the time that order was in place however D came into care at six months old when An Garda

Síochana executed their powers under Section 12 of the Child Care Act, 1991 believing that D was at risk of immediate and serious

harm and required immediate intervention to ensure D’s health and welfare. The respondent mother admitted D to voluntary care. D

was placed in a separate foster placement to C.

9. The Respondent mother was admitted to the maternity hospital for early delivery due to Concerns for A’s wellbeing and potential

for intrauterine foetal death. A pre-birth Conference was convened and concerns emerged that the respondent mother could not care

for Child A safely. Before A’s discharge from hospital an Emergency Care Order was granted and Child A joined Child C in his foster

placement when discharged from the maternity hospital. Both respondent parents then executed a Voluntary Admission into Care Form

and A has remained in voluntary care since that form was executed two months after A’s birth. A has remained in this placement with

C. 10. The grounds for Agency concern regarding C and D were the mother’s alcohol misuse, low mood and homelessness resulting from

these issues which led to situations where the children’s safety and welfare were jeopardised. In the case of A, the evidence

indicated that the mother required admission at 34 weeks gestation due to a risk to the child of intrauterine foetal death, as a result

of the mother’s alcohol misuse.

Previous Efforts to Assist

11. The Agency has offered the respondent parents numerous appointments to engage with support services in place and to work

with the Social Work Department. They have been offered numerous social work appointments which they have failed to attend. This

position has exacerbated in the last two years. There has been a failure to engage consistently in access visits, and with the social

work department around day to day care e.g. signing passport applications, medical or school appointments etc.

12. When the respondent parents disengaged from care planning for C, D and A, and there was a breakdown in regular

communication, the Agency made an application for an Interim Care Order under section 17 of the Child Care Act, 1991. An Interim

Care order was made on [date redacted] and extended until the hearing of this Care Application under section 18 of the Child Care

Act, 1991.

13. The Agency has applied for a Care Order in respect of each child C, D and A, and believe that the duration of such Order should

be until each child reaches his/her majority at eighteen years of age. This application is supported by the Guardian Ad Litem for C, D

and A.

14. The parents have not appeared in Court to contest or participate in the proceedings in any way. I have been informed that the

respondent mother informed the Guardian Ad Litem that she wishes to “fight for” her two children born to her in the last number of

years. She has informed the Guardian Ad Litem that she never expressed a desire to withdraw her consent to the voluntary care

arrangement for C, D or A and she always supported the children’s placement which she believes is meeting their respective needs

and she has no objection to them remaining in care until each reaches the age of eighteen years. She indicated to the guardian that

she does wish to have some involvement in their lives but does not wish social work involvement in her private family life.

15. Agency provided all parties and the Court with a Booklet of Reports a summary of the application and the grounds relied upon to

support the ‘findings of fact’ document which the Court was asked to make in achieving the threshold criteria of Section 18 (1) of the

1991 Act.

16. I have heard the evidence of:

• AT, the access worker, allocated in 2010 who gave evidence of parental attendance at access visits in accordance to

support her Report to Court set out at Tab 18 of the booklet of Reports;

• BM, the Allocated Social Worker who supported access visits in the period 2014-2017;

• MK, the Allocated Social Worker during 2013 and at the end of 2017 in accordance with the Reports to court set out at

Tabs 13-18 of the booklet of Reports;

• NR the Guardian ad Litem for C,D and A;

17. I do not propose to outline the evidence of each witness in any detail as their evidence is available on DAR. However, some

themes are relevant, namely:

(a) The non engagement of the parents with the social workers even when arranging or confirming arrangements

regarding access. Parental and extended family access has been decreased to minimise the disappointment of the children

at family access. Access visits were reduced to every two months for parental and extended family visits and sibling

access takes place on alternative months. The parents attended only one family access visit in 2015, two visits in 2016

and one in 2017. There has been no access visit by the parents in 2018. Many family visits were cancelled at short notice

and C, D and A were increasingly asking why the visits are cancelled. C and D have begun to refuse to attend access and

have begun to exhibit signs of insecurity at family access. The nature of the sporadic and inconsistent access has been

attributed to difficulty in contacting the parents who did not attend any of the Child In Care reviews to assess the needs

of the children in the care of the Agency either demonstrating an inability to give priority to the needs of the children.

The Best Practice Guidance produced by the Agency advises social workers that voluntary care does not last indefinitely.

C, D and A have been waiting a long time for a decision to be taken regarding their long term care needs.

(b) The different placements of the children: Child C and A are placed together and Child D is in a different placement.

The three children appear shy and reserved on family visits, but attend sibling access visits with greater familiarity and

ease. The children are affectionate with one another and demonstrate signs of closeness. Since the birth of their younger

siblings, who have remained in the care of their parents, both C and D feel “rejected” as the parents have slowly

disengaged from participating at access.

(c) Child C and Child A are very settled in terms of their emotional or social needs. Both C and A wished to be adopted by

their foster carers. However Child D struggles to manage his anxiety levels and has at times exhibited challenging

behaviour in the placement. Nonetheless Child D is strongly attached to his foster carers and is knitted into that family

and he also wishes to be adopted into the foster family.

18. NR was appointed as GAL to the children in early February 2018. He was received on two occasions by the respondent mother and

indicated to him her support for the children’s foster placements. She indicated that she would do nothing to jeopardise those

placements. She did not wish to engage with the social work department and wished to focus on her children in her own care. She

would like to get contact re-established but without the engagement of the social workers.

Wishes and Feelings of Children

19. C is thirteen and in the professional opinion of the GAL is settled in this foster placement and displays a positive attachment to

them. C is a polite well-mannered child. The foster carers are in the Guardian’s view, very attuned to his cues and needs. There is

evidence of routines and boundaries in place and in the Guardian’s view the foster placement positively contributes towards C and A’s

needs within a family environment that ensures the children’s needs are met.

20. C has a diagnosis of dyslexia. A psychoeducational report of 2014 identified C’s support needs especially with reading and C has

additional learning supports at school which has helped to identify how C can best be supported in the home environment.

21. C wishes to have more contact with D as he is in a different placement to his siblings and wishes to remain in this foster

placement and to be adopted by the foster carers.

22. D is ten years old and is also well mannered but somewhat anxious when discussing his wishes and feelings with the GAL. D is very

settled in this foster placement but has exhibited behavioural difficulties. D has been provided with play therapy to support him with

this anxiety and to ensure the security of the foster placement. D has no educational needs and is progressing well at school.

23. D also wishes to have more contact with C and expressed the view that one visit a month was not enough for D. D also wishes to

be adopted and remain living with the foster carers.

24. A has been in this foster placement since infancy and is very settled and secure in the foster placement. A has some educational

needs and struggles with numeracy but receives support in that regard at school. A cannot countenance anywhere else to live, and A

also wishes to have more contact with D.

Assessment and Recommendation of GAL

25. The Guardian Ad Litem supports the application of the Agency that there should be a Care Order for each child and that the

duration of the Orders should be until each child attains the age of 18 years so that their respective long term care needs can be

safeguarded. The Guardian has also reviewed the Care Plans for each child and is satisfied with the care planning for each child is

adequate at this time however the Guardian also recommends that the medical needs of each child should be reviewed continuously in

light of the evidence of neo natal exposure to alcohol. He also recommends a robust placement plan to include provision for

emergencies and respite, with enhanced provision for foster care link social worker allocation in light of there being two placements

for 3 children. The guardian also recommends the creation of access arrangements in respect of the parent’s and extended family

contact with the children, where deemed to be in the children’s best interests. The GAL also recommends more frequent sibling

access.

26. It is recognised that sibling access will be complex given that one sibling remains in kinship care, there are different foster

placements for Child C and Child A and for Child D, and two younger siblings are in the care of the respondent parents. The guardian

also recommends that medical histories for C, D and A’s maternal and paternal family are secured and shared with professionals

working with the three children to ensure that all areas of the children’s health and welfare is managed and supported. The guardian

also recommends that a “memory box” of photographs and significant items will continue to be kept for the children. The Guardian also

recommends a Court Review to assess After Care Arrangements for each child, and to deal with any proposed or required change of

placement.

Analysis Of Foster Placement Arrangements

27. A great amount of sympathy must extend to the parents who lived in a state of perpetual alcohol dependence during of the three

children’s early lives. They appear to have surmounted this dependence however and have two other children in their primary care. On

the basis of the evidence from the Agency, the three children could not be placed together when they came into care. C’s carers

could not receive D when D came into care and so C and D could not be accommodated together. When it became clear that it was

necessary for A to come into care however, the Agency ascertained that C’s carers were at that point in a position to accommodate

A, and so C and A were accommodated together. D is accommodated separately, and although he is receiving play therapy to help

him with his anxiety he is doing well at school and does not require additional learning supports however he occasionally exhibits

behavioural difficulties in his foster placement however he is settled and secure in this foster placement and securely attached to his

foster carer and their extended family. C has a diagnosis of dyslexia and struggles at reading and has additional learning supports at

school. A 2014 psycho educational report has assisted an understanding of his educational and home needs. A struggles with

numeracy and receives additional supports in this area. Child C and A are also securely attached to their foster carers who are

attuned to their needs.

Mother’s Views

28. The GAL in evidence outlined his meetings with the mother when he met with her to explain his role as the children’s Guardian Ad

Litem to her. She indicated to him that she is happy for the Care Orders to be made and she indicated that neither she nor her

partner wished to jeopardise the children’s placements where they are settled and attached. She advised him that they also

acknowledged the good care their three children in care are receiving and so it was best for them to remain there. She did not

welcome engagement with social workers as she wished to fight to retain the care of her younger children, and saw her relationship

with social workers in combative terms. She indicated that she wished to be involved in their lives. The GAL indicated that he views

access by parents as supportive of the children foster placements. The GAL noted the practical difficulties in this context however

also in light of the parent’s historical non engagement with the Agency.

DECISION

29. There is no doubt that the Agency has achieved the statutory threshold under section 18 of the Child Care Act, 1991 for a Care

Order in respect of each child under Section 18(1) (a) (b) and (c). Each child experienced harm in the care of their parents, and this

harm arose pre-birth in the case of A. I am satisfied that at the time when each child came into care that the parents lacked the

capacity to care for them safely by reason of their association with alcohol which jeopardised their care of the children.

30. Each child requires long term care planning. This is essential to their welfare and in each child’s best interests and so the duration

of the Order should be until each child has reached the age of 18 years. This will provide C, D and A with consistent care within a

warm and stable environment even though they are in separate placements

Access Arrangements

31. However the Agency must achieve other things. The children’s eldest sibling is in extended family care, and they have two other

siblings in the care of their parents, and C and A are in a separate placement to D. However the children in care have each expressed

a desire for more frequent access with each other and so the Agency must devise a well thought out access plan based on each

child’s needs. The Agency must also ensure that the children have some form of access with their eldest sibling and with the two

younger children in the care of their parents. This will no doubt be difficult to achieve but the Agency must do it’s very best to ensure

the family life of the children in their care in terms of sibling access.

32. Parental access and extended family access must also be accommodated in accordance with Section 37 of the Child Care Act,

1991. This will be complex as it involves the re-establishment of a relationship with each child. Parent /child access is important in the

view of the GAL to support the children in their placements. The GAL and Social Workers also noted that access arrangements must

be predictable and consistent and based on each child’s welfare needs.

33. Indirect Access should also be considered and should make provision for the collation of a “memory box” for each child with

photographs of family members and occasions and significant items to assist and maintain the children’s identity;

Directions under S. 47

34. In the case of D, C and A the Agency must ensure that the children are evaluated for neurological damage arising from foetal

alcohol spectrum disorder so that their ongoing needs in care can be more clearly defined and the medical evaluation of each child

should include a diagnosis and prognosis.

35. In the case of D the Agency must ensure that he receives therapy for anxiety and for his behavioural issues which have the

potential to undermine or destabilise his care placement. The Agency must also assess his educational and emotional support needs

continuously and at each child in care review.

36. In the case or C and A the Agency must continually assess their educational and emotional support needs continuously and at

each child in care review and the Agency should provide each child with all necessary remedial and therapeutic services as identified

in the Care Plans for each child. Where such services are not within the remit of the Agency to provide, and are provided by another

State Agency, I direct that the Agency engage in enhanced interagency co-operation to ensure that the child receives the services

in a timely manner, and where such services require an application for funding for private services in the child’s best interests, then

this should be applied for in a timely manner also.

37. I direct that the Agency provide the approved foster carers with all supports necessary to support them in their care role having

regard to the identified needs of the children in their care to ensure the longevity of the care placements. Such supports should

include provision for emergencies and respite.

38. I direct that the case is to be re-entered before the Court by the Agency in the event that:

a) The case becomes unallocated to a social worker or fostering link worker for a period of four weeks.

b) If the Agency (for any reason) fails to adhere to the statutory Care Planning regulations.

c) Should the current foster placements of C and A break down or become unstable, or should any risk to the viability of

the placement be identified by the Agency, or should the Agency seek to change the foster placement in any material

particular, for any reason.

d) Should the current foster placement of D break down or become unstable or should any risk to the viability of the

placement be identified by the Agency, or should the Agency seek to change the foster placement in any material

particular for any reason.

f) If the children remain in the Care of the Agency I direct that the case be re-entered before the Court in the case of C

on [date redacted], in the case of D on [date redacted] and in the case of A on [date redacted] so that their after care

needs can be assessed at that time.

g) In any and every situation where this case is re-entered before the Court the Guardian Ad Litem for the child or

children in question shall be re-appointed to bring to the Court’s attention the welfare interests and wishes of the Child at

least 8 weeks in advance of the proposed date of re-entry. In the case of an urgent application by the Agency then the

GAL shall be re-appointed as soon as practicable to bring the welfare interests and wishes of the child to the Court. If the

GAL is no longer practicing as a GAL, then the Agency shall apply to Court for an appropriate mechanism whether under S.

25 or S. 26 of the Child Care Act, 1991 (as amended) or through any alternative future statutory measure which gives

practical effect to Article 42A of the Irish Constitution.

h) The GAL is to be discharged on [date redacted] following a further meeting with the children to advise the children of

the Court’s decision;

Judge Rosemary Horgan

13/06/2018