District Court grants Care Order until age 18 for child in care due to parental neglect and substance misuse.

AN CHÚIRT DÚICHE THE DISTRICT COURT DUBLIN METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COURT

THE CHILD CARE ACT 1991 SECTION 18

IN THE MATTER OF E (a child)

THE CHILD AND FAMILY AGENCY Applicant -and-

AE First Respondent -and-

BE Second Respondent -and-

CE Guardian ad Litem

Decision of Judge Conor Fottrell delivered on the 1st day of July 2026

Introduction

1. The application is brought under section 18(1) of the Child Care Act 1991 (“the Act”)

in respect of a five-month-old child who has been in care since very shortly after birth.

2. The applicant is the Child and Family Agency (“the Agency”), which is seeking a Care Order in respect of the child until such time as the child reaches the age of 18 years.

3. The respondents are the parents of the child. They are referred to as “AE” and “BE”

and the child is referred to as “E”. The report of the decision has been anonymised to ensure the rights of both the child and the parents as litigants, in an in-camera hearing under the Act, are protected. In this way, the public interest in favour of publication can be satisfied without any identification of the mother, father and the child, in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

4. While both parents were legally represented at the Care Order hearing, unfortunately neither parent was present in court, and their legal representatives did not have instructions on the application before the Court.

5. The Court was satisfied that both parents were on notice of and aware that the application was before the Court today.

6. The child’s interests in the proceedings were represented by the court-appointed Guardian ad Litem, who was also represented by a solicitor. The Guardian ad Litem supported the Agency’s application for a Care Order for the child until he attained 18 years of age.

7. In circumstances where neither parent was present and their legal representatives did not have formal instructions on the Care Order application, the matter proceeded on an uncontested basis.

8. The Court heard evidence from the allocated social worker and the court-appointed Guardian ad Litem. In addition, the Court was provided with a booklet of papers including various professional reports and an updated care plan. The Court had the opportunity to review the booklet in advance of the hearing. Background

9. The mother has been known to the social work department since 2022. She has two other young children who are in the care of the Agency under care orders.

10. Sadly, the mother has a long history of homelessness, substance misuse, domestic violence and mental health issues.

11. In relation to this child, a referral was received by the Agency in September 2025 from a maternity hospital, outlining concerns around the mother failing to attend any medical appointments since her GP referred her to the hospital in June 2025.

12. There were grave concerns reported about the mother’s wellbeing throughout her pregnancy with reports that she was homeless and sleeping rough, and toxicology testing completed late in her pregnancy returned a positive result for heroin, cocaine and cannabis.

13. The child was born in early January 2026. Following his birth, he presented with withdrawal symptoms including tremors, sneezing, a high-pitched cry, and a toxicology test returned a positive result for cocaine.

14. Following the child’s birth, he was placed in the neonatal intensive care unit for a number of days. Both parents left the child in the neonatal intensive care unit for long periods of time over the following few days, and the mother was discharged from the hospital as she was not present on the ward following the child’s birth.

15. Initial efforts by the social work department assessed potential placements within the wider paternal family unit; however, this did not progress at the time.

16. An Emergency Care Order was granted on the 15th of January under section 13 of the Child Care Act 1991, and the child was placed in an emergency foster placement for several days.

17. The following week, on the 20th of January, an Interim Care Order application was before the Court. However, the parents agreed to sign a Voluntary Care Arrangement for a period of eight weeks, and the child was moved to a longer-term placement where he has remained to date.

18. On the expiry of the Voluntary Care Arrangement, the Agency brought a further application for an Interim Care Order under section 17 of the 1991 Act in March 2026. The application was granted, and that Order has been extended on five further occasions since. Care Order Hearing

19. The Court heard evidence from the allocated social worker and court-appointed Guardian ad Litem.

20. The social worker has been allocated to the case since the 16th of December 2025. It was outlined in her social work report that she attempted to undertake a pre-birth assessment, but the mother was uncontactable with no phone or fixed address.

21. At the Child Protection Conference held shortly after birth, the mother indicated that she did not feel she could care for the child at the time as she needed to address her addiction issues first. The mother wanted the father to care for the child.

22. However, concerns were raised around the father’s family and issues with Garda vetting, and it was later discovered that the father had been incarcerated for some time during the mother’s pregnancy in 2025.

23. The social worker highlighted concerns around the parents’ poor decision-making during pregnancy and the negative impact this had on the child.

24. This included ongoing drug use during pregnancy, homelessness (including sleeping rough at the time) and non-attendance at antenatal appointments.

25. Since the baby has been admitted into care, the social worker has not been able to contact either parent on a regular basis. The parents do not have a phone number or a fixed address.

26. There have been delays with the child receiving necessary vaccinations and registering the birth.

27. The social worker outlined that access arrangements were initially organised for three times per week. Unfortunately, despite repeated efforts to contact the parents and progress the access plan, no access is taking place.

28. The parents have not had any access or contact with the child since January.

29. The social worker confirmed the Agency was seeking a full Care Order until the child reaches the age of 18 years, believing this was proportionate and in the child’s best interests.

30. The court-appointed Guardian ad Litem outlined that she was supporting the application for a full Care Order. The Guardian was appointed to the case in January 2026.

31. Given the child’s very young age, he obviously cannot express a view or wish on the application before the Court.

32. The Guardian noted that the child has been in the same foster placement since January. He is settled and thriving in the placement which is available to him on a long-term basis.

33. The Guardian informed the Court that the child is “absolutely adored” and “so well looked after by other children in the foster family” who all “fight over who can hold and look after him when they return home from school”.

34. At a recent visit with the child the Guardian noted that the child was “alert, smiling and it is evident he continues to thrive in the placement.”

35. The foster carers report that the child is doing well and they are delighted that the child is now vaccinated. The foster carers have a collection of photos and special milestones of the child which they hope will be part of his life storybook when he is older.

36. The Guardian confirmed that she was supporting the Care Order application to the age of 18 years to ensure the child has the necessary security, certainty and stability in his life.

37. The child’s care plan is updated following a recent Child in Care Review and was before the court.

Section 18(1) of the Child Care Act 1991

38. Section 18 of the Act provides:

“(1) Where, on the application of Child and Family Agency with respect to a child, the court is satisfied that—

(a) the child has been or is being assaulted, ill-treated, neglected or sexually abused, or

(b) the child’s health, development or welfare has been or is being avoidably impaired or neglected, or

(c) the child’s health, development or welfare is likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected, and that the child requires care or protection which he is unlikely to receive unless the court makes an order under this section, the court may make an order (in this Act referred to as a “care order”) in respect of the child.”

39. The Agency is seeking a full Care Order to the age of 18 years. The burden of proof in this application rests with the Agency. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

40. The Court has to be satisfied that the Agency has proved, on the balance of probabilities, that it is necessary for the child to remain in care and that a full Care Order to the age of majority is a proportionate and necessary response to secure the welfare of the child, and that the child requires care and protection which the child is unlikely to receive unless the Court makes a Care Order.

41. These are the matters which guide the Court in reaching a determination, while also having regard to the constitutional presumption that the best interests of the child are to be found within the family unit and that presumption must permeate the adjudication process.

42. Article 42(A) of the Constitution is clear that any interference with a parent’s constitutional rights must be an exceptional measure which is justified by reason of the safety and welfare of the child and then only in accordance with the law.

Section 24 of the Child Care Act 1991

43. The Court has also considered the requirements of section 24 of the Act, as amended, to regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration in these proceedings.

44. In determining what is in the best interest of the child, the Court has had regard to the factors or circumstances it considers relevant, as set out in section 24(2) paragraphs (a-g) as follows:

“—(1) In any proceedings before a court under this Act in relation to the care and protection of a child, including proceedings before the High Court under Part IVA in relation to special care, the court shall regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration in the resolution of such proceedings.

(2) In determining for the purposes of subsection (1) what is in the best interests of the child, the court shall have regard to all of the factors or circumstances that it considers relevant to the child including—

(a) the child’s age, maturity and any special characteristics of the child,

(b) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with his or her parents and with any other relatives and persons who are involved in the child’s upbringing,

(c) the views of the child where he or she is capable of forming, and has chosen to express, such views,

(d) the physical, psychological and emotional needs of the child,

(e) the social, intellectual and educational needs of the child,

(f) the religious, spiritual, cultural and linguistic upbringing and needs of the child, and

(g) any harm which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering, including harm as a result of household violence, and the protection of the child’s safety and psychological well-being.”

Conclusion

45. This is a very sad case where the application before the Court is for a full Care Order to the age of 18 years in respect of a five-month-old baby.

46. Regrettably, neither parent attended the Care Order hearing, and they have not seen their child since January.

47. The mother has been open and honest with the social workers around her drug use and homelessness and indicated in January that she was not able to care for the child.

48. The Court accepts that she is extremely vulnerable and will require significant help and support in dealing with her difficulties and it will take time for her to address her chronic drug use.

49. The mother has a history of previous social work involvement, and she has two other young children in care under court orders.

50. While initially the mother wanted the child to be cared for by the paternal family, they indicated they did not wish to progress with any assessment.

51. The social workers have limited information on the father, and he has been difficult to contact and engage with during the proceedings.

52. The reports submitted to the Court outline significant efforts made by the professionals to try and engage with the parents to maintain or develop a positive relationship with the child.

53. The social workers have indicated that they will remain available to the parents should they wish to contact them and re-engage to be part of the child’s life.

54. The Court is satisfied that the child is safe and being cared for by committed, loving foster carers who are available to him on a long-term basis. It is clear from the reports and evidence that he is adored by his foster family.

55. The child is only five months old and requires a high level of care. He was exposed to drug use in utero, experienced withdrawal symptoms following birth, and toxicology testing following birth returned a positive result for cocaine.

56. While the child is now healthy and thriving in a safe environment, it is not clear whether his early life experiences will have any long-term negative impact on him.

57. Neither parent has to date been able to demonstrate any capacity to provide a safe, stable, drug-free, caring environment for the child.

58. Currently there is no evidence of any change in relation to their addiction, homelessness, or ability to engage with professionals.

Court Decision

59. Therefore, based on the evidence adduced to the Court, the Court accordingly concludes that on the balance of probabilities, the threshold for a Care Order under section 18(1)(c) of the 1991 Act has been met in respect of this child and that the child’s health, development or welfare is likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected were the child to be placed in the care of the parents at this time.

60. The child further requires the care or protection which he is unlikely to receive unless the Court makes an order under this section.

61. The remaining issue for the Court to decide is the duration of the Care Order. The Agency, supported by the Guardian ad Litem, is seeking an order until the child has attained 18 years of age to ensure the child has long-term stability, certainty and security.

62. The Court has had regard to section 24 of the Act, requiring the Court to regard the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.

63. The Court is satisfied that the child’s needs will be met in a consistent way in the foster placement, where he is loved and well cared for in a safe environment.

64. The Court is conscious of the very young age of this child, and this decision is not taken lightly but having considered all the evidence, the Court is satisfied that a full Care Order is necessary and proportionate and should be granted to the age of 18 years.

65. The Court sincerely hopes that the parents can reengage with the professionals and work towards reestablishing access with their child.

66. The mother will need to be supported and helped to address her long-standing addiction issues.

67. It is always open to the parents to apply under section 22 of the Act to discharge the Care Order. The Agency is also obliged to consider reunification at the statutory Child in Care Reviews.

68. The Court will list this matter for a Care Order review in one year for an update on the parents and the child’s progress.

69. Finally, the Court wishes the child well into the future and hope he continues to thrive.

70. In terms of any reporting of this case nothing is to be reported or broadcast which would lead members of the public to identify the child or any of the parties involved in the Child Care proceedings as stipulated by the Courts and Civil Law Act.

Section 47 Directions

71. Under section 47 of the Act, the Court directs that the Agency is to re-enter the case before the Court if:

(a) The child becomes unallocated to a social worker for a period of four weeks.

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

(c) The child’s foster placement breaks down or if there is a move of placement.

(d) The child’s statutory Child in Care Reviews do not take place or if the child is not visited by a social worker within the required statutory care planning regulations timeframe.

(e) The child’s current placement is not matched as their long-term placement in six months’ time.

(f) If a passport application is not progressed within a period of six months by November 2026.

Judge Conor Fottrell. Judge of the District Court. 1st of July 2026