IEDC 2 · District Court

DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT COURT AREA OF WEXFORD DISTRICT NO. 23 THE CHILD AND FAMILY AGENCY APPLICANT

- AND - A.R., D.K.K., A.R.(G)

RESPONDENTS Judgment delivered by Judge Brian O’Shea at Wexford District Court on the 13th day of March 2020

1. This is an application for a care order pursuant to section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991 as amended. The subject of the order sought is the first and second respondents’ daughter O.R. who was born on 14 January 2017. O.R. is currently the subject of an interim care order that has been renewed more than 20 times. She was initially in the care of A.R.(G), her maternal grandmother, before being placed with foster carers on 28 March 2018.

2. Initially it was indicated that the matter was contested, but on the hearing date the first respondent made a decision that reminds me of the decision made by the true mother in the ‘Judgment of Solomon’ story. On the evidence, this was a very brave and wise

decision to make at such a young age, after which she cannot be accused of putting her own interests before her child.

3. Without dissent, the parties are agreed, subject to the court, that a court review of the child’s circumstances is warranted after 2 years. The guardian ad litem opines that the primary reason is the youth of both the child and the first respondent.

4. Having reviewed all the evidence the court is satisfied that the following facts have been established to the requisite standard:

a) O.R. is a vulnerable young child.

b) Notwithstanding her tender years, O.R. has experienced significant disturbance in her life.

c) It is important to note that the first respondent has also experienced significant neglect throughout her childhood.

d) A.R. has been in an intermittent relationship with D.K.K. He has been violent towards her on multiple occasions. He has been as useless as a glass hammer in terms of O.R.’s upbringing.

e) The first respondent was properly identified as being at high risk in terms of her potential to provide a safe and secure environment for O.R.

f) Prior to, during and after the birth of OR, high levels of support were put in place for the first respondent, and her mother, to assist in the safe and secure upbringing of O.R. but, broadly speaking, they did not avail of them to a sufficient degree.

g) Consequently, a supervision order was sought and granted owing to the neglect of O.R.’s needs by the first respondent and her mother.

h) Court recommendations were not followed, however, and an interim care order was granted on 28 March 2018.

i) A reunification plan was put in place on 24 July 2018

j) There have been more than 20 extensions of the interim care order.

k) The court was hopeful that during the period of the multiple extensions the first respondent would engage with the available supports with a view towards possible reunification in accordance with the associated plan.

l) Again, the first respondent and her mother have not engaged in any meaningful way.

m) As matters stand, the first respondent does not have a meaningful relationship with O.R. because she has never prioritised her daughter’s needs over her own.

n) As matters stand, the first respondent’s mother does not have a meaningful relationship with O.R. because she has no real appreciation of OR’s needs and lacks insight into the legitimate concerns of the Applicant. To be fair to her, she has her own health issues.

o) These issues have caused attachment problems for O.R. and so she has no sense of security at this important developmental stage in her life.

p) As matters stand the first respondent does not have the capacity to parent and her mother is not a suitable person to act in the place of a parent.

5. The content of subsection 18(1) of the Child Care Act 1991 must guide the court’s determination. So too, the court must, and has, carefully considered the rights and duties of the parents and the child under the Constitution. Section 24 of the 1991 Act and section 31 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 as amended also contain key considerations. Section 47 empowers the court to make directions affecting the child’s welfare.

6. The court is satisfied on the evidence that O.R.’s health, development and/or welfare is likely to be avoidably impaired and/or neglected, and that O.R. requires care and/or protection which she is unlikely to receive unless the court makes the order sought.

7. Being satisfied that the statutory threshold is met in relation to the application before the court, it is appropriate to carefully consider whether any remedy short of a care order might meet the situation. In particular, the court has considered whether the circumstances of the case might be met by granting a supervision order rather than a care order. This was done previously, and every conceivable opportunity was given in that regard, but not availed of in a meaningful way. On the evidence the court considers it appropriate, necessary and proportionate to grant a care order as opposed to a supervision order.

8. Accordingly, the court hereby grants the care order sought in respect of O.R. pursuant to section 18(1) the Child Care Act 1991 as amended.

9. Subsection 18(2) of the 1991 Act provides that a care order shall commit a child to the care of the Child and Family Agency for so long as she remains a child or for such shorter period as the court may determine and, in such case, the court may, of its own motion or on the application of any person, extend the operation of the order if the court is satisfied that grounds for the making of a care order continue to exist with respect to the child.

10. The court is satisfied on the evidence that an order for the duration of O.R.’s minority is appropriate and proportionate.

11. The court orders that all access shall be at the discretion of the Applicant within the parameters of section 37 of the 1991 Act. The cancellation, suspension, or postponement of access on reasonable grounds shall be at the discretion of the Applicant.

12. On consent, I am directing the Applicant to devise a plan containing matters that will enable the first respondent to self-help and improve her relationship with O.R., with the ultimate goal of increasing access.

13. On consent, I am directing the guardian ad litem remain engaged for a period of 8 weeks from today to allow her to work with the social workers to devise a new access plan.

14. On consent, I am directing that the Applicant provide for the first respondent, if she chooses to avail of same, at least 3 tailored parenting sessions.

15. The court dispenses with the consent by the Respondents to permit O.R. to undergo any medical, dental or other similar treatment, including but not limited to medically advised surgery.

16. The court dispenses with the consent by the Respondents to allow O.R. to obtain a passport, visa or other travel document or to travel out of the jurisdiction for reasonable motives, including but not limited to, family holidays, or for educational or medical reasons. In the event that such travel is to occur the Applicant, or its agents, will notify the Respondents in writing at least two weeks in advance of both the fact and the purpose of the travel. Service of such notice shall be deemed good if it is by ordinary prepaid post at the last known address of the Respondent.

17. An annual internal review shall be conducted by the Applicant until further order.

Following such reviews, the Applicant shall prepare a report in writing detailing the information and matters to which the Applicant is required by law to have regard. This should include any ascertainable views and information provided by O.R., the Respondents, the foster carers and any other persons consulted by the Applicant. The written report must also include the decisions made because of the review.

18. On consent, and because the court accepts it is appropriate, I am directing a court review of the child’s circumstances on the first court date assigned to childcare proceedings after a period of 2 years from today.

19. The court directs that the Applicant shall provide support, advice and assistance to the foster carers to help them meet their challenges in caring for O.R. including the appointment with immediate effect, if not already done, of a fostering link worker for the family who shall visit the family on a regular basis, but at least every four months.

20. The court directs that the Applicant shall re-enter the case before the court without delay and a guardian ad litem, if appropriate, shall be appointed immediately, in the event that:

(1) a social worker becomes unallocated to O.R. for a period of one month; (2) a planned or unplanned change occurs relating to the current foster placement; (3) a fostering link worker not being assigned to the foster carers for more than one month; and/or (4) the foster carers are not visited by the fostering link worker at least every four months.

21. The court directs that the matter shall be placed before the court at least 4 months in advance of the child entering secondary school, and similarly before sitting the Junior Certificate (or equivalent) examinations.

22. The court directs that an aftercare review is conducted, and an aftercare plan be prepared and an aftercare worker be appointed for O.R. not later than her 16th birthday.

23. The court directs that the case shall be re-entered before the court not later than O.R.’s 17th birthday for review of the aftercare plan. To this end, a guardian ad litem, if appropriate, shall be appointed six months before O.R.’s 17th birthday.

24. On the basis that this court has determined these proceedings primarily on the facts established on foot of the evidence, the court hereby orders that any appeal from the orders herein shall not stay the operation of such orders or any part thereof except on the express order of the appellate court.

25. The court is expressly not retaining seisin of this matter.