Care Order granted for 7-year-old child to remain in residential placement with HSE consent.

[2012] IEDC 12

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE

APPLICANT

-AND-

NC

RESPONDENT

CHILD CARE ACT, 1991— SECTION 18

IN THE MATTER OF A CHILD

20 June 2012

1. This is an application for a Care Order under section 18 of the Child Care Act, 1991 in respect of a Child, aged 7.

2. The parents are not married to one another and have not resided together as a couple since 2000 when the mother found herself

coping as a single parent of three boys then aged 6, 5, and 2 years of age.

3. The mother, who is the Respondent, is separately represented within these proceedings. The father has chosen not to participate

in the proceedings.

4. The Child was appointed a Guardian Ad Litem on 28 June 2011 to represent his separate interest in the proceedings. The GAL is

also represented in the proceedings.

5. The Child came into the voluntary care of the HSE in May 2002 and was placed in residential care for a period with his sibling

before being returned to the care of his mother. Ultimately, the Child came back into the care system following an Emergency Care

Order made in April, 2011 and subsequently an Interim Care Order was sought by the HSE and granted by the Court on 8 April 2011.

The ICO has been extended on 11 occasions before the Care Hearing listed today.

6. The HSE brought this application on the basis that the Child’s health, development, and welfare would be avoidably impaired if he

was removed from the Care of the HSE and his welfare required the making of the Order. He is a mature minor who wishes to remain in

his current placement in X Residential Unit.

7. The Court was informed that the matter would proceed on the consent of the mother; the father has never participated in the

proceedings.

8. A Social Worker gave evidence as per her Reports at Tabs15-26 of the Booklet of Evidence the final report to Court dated 11 June

and affirmed that the contents of same were true and accurate and that her professional opinion was that the threshold criteria were

met and continue to be met under the heading of section 18(1)(c). Moreover, the Child had expressed to her his desire to remain in

his current placement. Her evidence was that the mother has expressed the view that she requires a longer period of stability in her

recovery before assuming full parenting of her children and that she has carefully considered the wishes of the Child.

9. The GAL expressed satisfaction with the Care Plan proposed by the HSE for the Child but remained concerned that there would be

a review to deal with After Care for the Child and a Review in the event of the Breakdown of the Placement. The GAL ascertained the

Child’s wishes with some difficulty in light of the matters set out in the final GAL Report to Court dated 31 May 2012. He had checked

again with the Child regarding his wishes and feelings to ensure that he was accurately representing them and was satisfied that the

Child wants to remain in his current placement and to regulate his own access relationship with his mother, that he has a maturity

consistent with this view, and he has a warm loving and loyal relationship with his mother.

Section 18 Threshold

10. Having read the reports and booklets furnished and the GAL Report and the evidence of the Social Worker and the GAL, and

having the submissions received from the Respondent mother’s legal representative, I am satisfied that the threshold criteria are met

under section 18(1)(c) and that having considered the evidence I am satisfied that the mother of the Child consents to this Order to

ensure that he can continue in his current residential placement and that the making of a full care order is a necessary and

proportionate intervention; therefore, the Care Order is to continue until the Child reaches his 18th birthday.

Section 37 Access

11. I am satisfied that no order is required; as the matter of access is self-regulated by the Child and his mother and that this is

mutually satisfactory and satisfactory to the HSE also. The parties have liberty to apply to the Court should circumstances change.

Section 47 Directions

12. Pursuant to section 47, the Court makes the following directions:

1. That the Case is Re-Entered before the Court and the Guardian re-appointed four weeks before the date of re-

entry in the event that

(a) the case becomes unallocated to a Social Worker/Fostering Link worker for a period of four weeks;

(b) A planned or unplanned change of foster placement; in the case of a planned change of foster

placement the re-entry and reappointment of the GAL should be in advance of the actual change of

placement. In the event of an unplanned change of placement, the reappointment and re-entry should

be as soon as practicable.

(c) After Care Review (to coincide with the Child’s 17th birthday) to assess After Care Services and

funding provision [date given].

2. That the HSE provides all appropriate therapeutic interventions and services to the Child tailored to meet his

specific needs and if required to also address his relationship with his father.

3. That the HSE provides all appropriate therapeutic interventions and services to the Child’s mother tailored to

meet her specific needs to enhance her parental relationship with the Child;

4. That the HSE takes all steps necessary to ensure that the Child receives the therapeutic interventions and

services set out in the Care Plan filed in Court.

5. Re-Entry Date for After Care Review to be set in place and the GAL to be re-appointed four weeks in advance of

the date of Re-entry and provided with access to all HSE files in that regard.

6. Order for costs in favour of the Guardian in accordance with Child Care Act, 1991 same to be taxed in default of

agreement;

7. Refuse application for costs on behalf of the mother made under the Legal Aid Act 1995