District Court grants 18-year Care Order for infant due to parents' drug abuse and neglect history.

[2012] IEDC 17

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE

APPLICANT

-AND-

CC & PS

RESPONDENTS

CHILD CARE ACT, 1991— SECTION 18

IN THE MATTER OF CHILD 5

8 October 2012

1. This is an application for a Care Order under section 18 of the Child Care Act, 1991 (herein after referred to as ‘the 1991 Act’) in

respect of Child 5 heard on 8 October 2012. Child 5 is currently in the care of the Health Service Executive (HSE). Child 5 was

admitted to the care of the HSE pursuant to an application for an Interim Care Order on 28 of March 2011, which was extended on six

occasions.

2. Child 5 was represented in these proceedings by her Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”) The GAL indicated to the Court her support for a

Care Order in respect of the child and recommended that such a Care Order be for the full duration.

3. Neither the mother, who is the first named respondent, nor the father, who is the second named respondent attended Court;

however, their legal representative was present and indicated the efforts that had been made to have the parents attend the Court.

The HSE gave evidence of service of the proceedings on both parents by ordinary post. I am satisfied that both parents were

properly served with notice of the proceedings and that in Child 5’s interests, the matter should proceed.

4. The Court, on 24 September 2012, made an Order pursuant to section 23 admitting into evidence statements made by Child 1 (an

older sibling of Child 5) to the Social Worker and I have taken it into consideration in determining these proceedings.

5. I have heard evidence from the Social Worker who has been involved with the family since June 2009. She confirmed and adopted

her report at Tab 6 of the Booklet of Evidence and gave evidence of the admitted drug misuse by both parents on various occasions

in the past and concerns of their ongoing drug misuse and in particular the mother’s current poor motivation to address her drug

misuse. She also gave evidence of disclosures by the siblings who are currently in care of Child 5 of severe neglect and emotional

abuse by both parents including, inter alia, exposure to the parents’ drug use, children being left alone, poor school attendance,

emotional abuse, and physical disciplining of the children. She expressed concerns that Child 5’s needs would not be met by the

parents in the immediate or long-term future. She gave evidence that access has been reduced on two occasions and that the

parents are often late for scheduled access visits but confirmed that the HSE will continue to work with the parents around access,

accommodation, and drug treatment supports. She also gave evidence that the foster placement for Child 5, who is an infant, is

working well where she is placed with two of her siblings and that work would continue with the foster family around Child 5’s identity

and to facilitate sibling and extended family access.

6. I have heard evidence of the Drug Liaison Midwife. He adopted his reports at Tabs 19 and 20 of the Booklet of Evidence and gave

evidence of the mother’s disclosure of using heroin while pregnant with the infant Child 5 and how her ante-natal attendance was

initially poor but did increase in her late trimester. He gave evidence that an in-patient stabilisation programme was offered to the

mother but she failed to attend pre-admission appointments. He gave evidence that the mother continued to actively use heroin

during her pregnancy with the infant Child 5, but that she did stabilise somewhat under the care of her GP and appeared to reduce

her dosage. He gave evidence that the mother was aware of the effect of her use of heroin on her unborn child and that the infant

Child 5 was born prematurely with neonatal abstinence syndrome requiring medical treatment.

7. I have heard the evidence of the mother’s and father’s GP. She adopted her reports at Tabs 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the Booklet of

Evidence and provided most recent drug test result for the Court. She gave evidence that the parents attended her clinic today and

indicated an awareness of the court proceedings. She gave evidence of her involvement with the mother since October 2011 when

the mother attended for a methadone maintenance programme while pregnant with the infant Child 5. She gave evidence that at that

time the mother reported using heroin regularly and that the mother attended her clinic regularly but tests showed that she continued

to use opiates and benzodiazepines. She gave evidence that her treatment plan for the mother was to stabilize her on methadone

and that she recommended a residential treatment programme and counselling services which the mother did not avail of but that she

did continue to attend to her as an out-patient. She gave evidence that the mother is pregnant again and detox is not considered as

an option at present; however, the mother appears to be using non-prescribed drugs less frequently and is using them in smaller

amounts.

She gave evidence that the father has only been attending her clinic for a few months and that his urines continue to be positive for

opiates. A referral has been made for him to counselling. She gave evidence that the father has successfully detoxed in the past and

subsequently relapsed and that the mother has never successfully detoxed. She gave evidence that for both parents to detox in

future they would need to meaningfully engage with counselling and that at present they are attending her clinic but are not

attending for counselling.

8. I have heard the evidence of the GAL. She gave evidence of her involvement with this family and the infant Child 5’s four older

siblings since 2008. She gave evidence of disclosures of neglect by the older siblings in similar terms as set our in Paragraph 5 above.

She gave evidence of attending at the infant Child 5’s pre-birth case conference and formed the opinion that the mother could not

put her unborn child’s needs before her own drug use. She gave evidence of how sick the infant Child 5 was after birth and that the

mother did not appear to be frightened by this. She gave her opinion that the parents, while they are using drugs, would not be in a

position to care for any of the children — even if they were on a methadone maintenance programme. She gave evidence that the

infant Child 5 is now a happy baby and doing well and approved her current foster placement. She advised that while the parents do

not like the foster parents, the recommendations made by the Social Worker to improve this relationship should be carried out. She

gave evidence that she is satisfied with the level of access between the infant Child 5 and her parents and her siblings at present.

She advised the Court that in her opinion a Care Order is required in this case.

Decision

9. Having heard the evidence and read the reports in the Booklet of Evidence, I am satisfied the facts as set out at Tab 22 of the

Booklet of Evidence have been proven.

10. Having heard the evidence set out above, having read the reports in the Booklet of Evidence, and having read the Care Plan filed,

I am satisfied that in respect of the infant Child 5 that the threshold criteria under section18 (1),(b) and (c) of the 1991 Act are met

and that the infant Child 5’s health, development, and welfare would suffer if a Care Order were not granted. The duration of the Care

Order shall be for 18 years. I am satisfied to make the Care Order for the following reasons:

(i) The parent’ long history of and ongoing poly-substance abuse;

(ii) The mother’s ongoing drug use during her pregnancy with the Child 5;

(iii) The mother’s lack of engagement with drug treatment counseling and residential treatment supports offered to

her during her pregnancy with the infant;

(iv) The mother’s failure to demonstrate sustained stability with drug treatment, management, or detoxification

programme;

(v) The father’s failure to demonstrate sustained stability with drug treatment, management, or detoxification

programme;

(vi) The parents’ significant history of physical neglect and emotional abuse of their older children;

(vii) The parents’ failure to show the ability or commitment to sustain consistent care and parenting to the Child 5

and that there is no indication this is likely to change in the foreseeable future.

Directions

11. I direct the GAL to be discharged and her costs to be paid by the Applicant and taxed in default of agreement.

12. Under section 47 of the Child Care Act 1991, I direct that the case is to be re-entered before the Court and the GAL reappointed

four weeks before the date of re-entry in the event that:

(i) a Social Worker/Fostering Link Worker becomes unallocated to the infant Child 5 for a period of 4 weeks;

(ii) a planned or unplanned change of current foster placement of the infant Child 5;

(iii) After Care Review for the infant Child 5 on her 17th birthday [date given] to assess her after care service

needs.

13. With respect to the future care of the infant Child 5:

(i) I approve the Care Plan filed and the foster placement suggested and note the GAL’s agreement in this respect;

(ii) I order access between the infant Child 5 and her parents pursuant to section 37 of the 1991 Act;

(iii) I direct that the HSE implement the recommendations contained in the Social Work Review dated Sept 2012

conducted by the Social Worker.