District Court grants Care Order for Child 4 due to parents' persistent neglect, substance abuse, and domestic violence risks.

[2012] IEDC 18

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE

APPLICANT

-AND-

AD & WC

RESPONDENTS

CHILD CARE ACT, 1991— SECTION 18

IN THE MATTER OF CHILD 4

24 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 a child, Child 4, heard on 24 October 2012. Child 4 is currently in the care of the Health Service Executive (HSE). Child 4

was admitted to the care of the HSE pursuant to an application for an Interim Care Order on 17 November 2011 which has been

extended by the Court on nine occasions since that date.

2. Child 4 was represented in these proceedings by her Guardian Ad Litem. The Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) indicated to the Court his

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

3. Child 4’s mother, the first named respondent, attended Court and was legally represented. She acknowledged her continuing

difficulties and need for on-going support and indicated her consent to the making of a Care Order and noted her ultimate aim to have

Child 4 returned to her care.

4. Child 4’s father, the second named respondent, did not attend Court, however, his legal representative was present and indicated

the efforts that had been made to have him attend at the Court and that he was aware of the proceedings. His legal representative

was allowed by the Court to attend and observe the proceedings.

5. I am satisfied that both parents have been properly served with notice of the proceedings and that in the child’s interests the

matter should proceed.

6. I have heard the evidence of Social Worker 1 who has been involved with the mother since in or around 2000. She confirmed and

adopted her report at Tab 7 of the Booklet of Evidence. She gave evidence of the pattern of significant risk which resulted in the

mother’s three older children coming into care, which included her alcohol and drug misuse, her history of violent relationships, her

unsuitable accommodation, her chaotic lifestyle, her mental health and self harming problems, and her neglect of her 3 older children.

She gave evidence that she would have similar concerns for the mother’s care of Child 4. The Social Worker gave evidence of the

efforts made to keep the 3 older children in the mother’s care and the supports offered to her including a residential detoxification

programme which was not successful.

Social Worker 1 pointed out that the mother is a good person who loves her children but she could not control her personal

circumstances sufficiently to sustain care of her children.

Social Worker 1 gave evidence of the mother’s continued drug use while pregnant with Child 1 which was admitted by the mother and

confirmed by the results of her urine analysis.

Social Worker 1 gave evidence of her interaction with the father before the birth of Child 4 and described how he did not disclose his

prior involvement with the HSE with regard to his older child being taken into full-time care.

Social Worker 1 gave evidence that the mother has not had contact with her older children since 2008 and for this access to resume

the mother would need to show indicators of stability and motivation.

7. I have heard the evidence of Social Worker 2. She adopted her report at Tabs 5 of the Booklet of Evidence. She gave evidence of

the primary reasons for making a care application in respect of Child 4 in November 2011 as being the mother’s drug addiction and the

father’s aggression. She gave evidence of the mother’s positive drug tests in October 2011, immediately prior to Child 4’s birth, and

evidence of how the mother has struggled with her addiction and that while she believes the mother wants to stabilise and the

mother’s attendance at her clinic is good there is evidence of only very little progress. She noted that up to February 2012, the

mother was testing positive for opiates and referred to reports at Tab 8 of the Booklet of Evidence. She also outlined her concerns

regarding the mother’s mental health and the efforts made to link the mother with counselling services through her drug treatment

clinic and with psychiatric services. She gave evidence that the HSE will help the mother in every possible way but she will need to

engage with the HSE.

Social Worker 2 gave evidence of the father’s history of involvement with the Social Work Department and her concerns that Child 4

would be in danger of experiencing or witnessing domestic violence and abuse if the father and the mother were to parent Child 4

together. Social Worker 2 gave evidence of the father’s history of domestic violence with his previous partner and with family

members and evidence of assaults on the mother in March and September 2012 and another incident at her accommodation in July

2012 and an incident of aggression at access with Child 1. She gave evidence of the father’s history of drug use and her belief that

the father appears to be testing negatively for drugs at present. She gave evidence that the father has at times indicated mental

health difficulties and that he has been referred to counselling and medical services for this and he has also been referred to a clinic

for anger management support but that it has been difficult to get the father to engage with services. She stated her concern

regarding the father’s aggression and violence, which had increased since last year.

Social Worker 2 gave evidence that access between the parents and Child 4 was initially positive, with the mother being very capable

of responding to Child 4’s needs; and while the father found it more difficult, he did try. She gave evidence that access ceased in

January 2012 and was resumed but was inconsistent until access was suspended after the father’s assault on the mother in March

2012. Access was then referred to a supervised centre and resumed separately by the parents in May 2012. The mother had two

access visits with Child 4 when she then stopped access. The father resumed access in June 2012, however, his attendance was

inconsistent and was suspended in September 2012 and has not yet resumed.

Social Worker 2 gave evidence that Child 4 is doing very well in the care of her foster family, she is happy, her health is good, and

she is meeting all developmental milestones. Her foster family have been approved to be her long term carers and if a Care Order is

made the matching process will proceed.

8. I have heard the evidence of the GAL. He gave evidence of his involvement with this family and the infant Child 4 since August

2012 and confirmed and adopted his signed report handed into Court. He gave evidence of difficulties in engaging with both parents,

that he has examined the social work files and attended a Child in Care Review. He noted that the father failed to attend 2 access

visits he was scheduled to observe. He stated that he has met Child 4 and visited her in her foster home. He gave evidence that he

shares the concerns outlined by the Social Workers; that the parents cannot provide stable, consistent and predictable care for Child

1 as they are entrenched in their own drug and mental health problems. He gave evidence of concern at the father’s level of

aggression, his history of lack of engagement with professionals with regard to his elder child, and his attendance at 10 of the last 21

scheduled access visits. The GAL advised the Court that the child should not have to take on the complexity of the parents’ lives. He

further recommended that access needs to be assessed before it is resumed between the mother and Child 4 and that it must be

managed in Child 4’s interests and that there is not enough evidence of the parents’ capacity to engage with access at present. The

GAL further recommended Child 4’s current placement should continue as her long-term placement. The GAL also recommended that

addiction supports and mental health services continue to be provided to the parents.

Decision

9. Having heard the evidence and read the reports in the Booklet of Evidence, I am satisfied that the facts as set out at Tab 1 of the

Booklet of Evidence have been proven.

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

that in respect of the infant Child 4 the threshold criteria under section 18(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the 1991 Act are met and that the

infant Child 4’s health, development, and welfare would suffer if a Care Order was not granted. The duration of the Care Order shall be

until Child 4’s 18th birthday [date given]. I am satisfied to make the Care Order for the following reasons:

(i) the mother’s history of neglect of care for her older children;

(ii) the mother’s history of, and on-going, difficulties with drugs and alcohol and her use of drugs during her

pregnancy with Child 4;

(iii) the mother’s history of, and on-going, mental health problems and her lack of engagement with support services

offered to address these difficulties;

(iv) the mother’s history of, and on-going, problems securing proper accommodation;

(v) the mother’s experience of domestic violence;

(vi) the father’s history of neglect of care for his older child; and

(vii) the father’s significant history of aggression and domestic violence and his lack of engagement with support

services offered to address these difficulties.

11. I am satisfied that to make this order is proportionate in this case as despite the multiple supports offered to the parents to deal

with their addiction, mental health difficulties, accommodation, domestic violence, aggression, and anger management problems. Their

engagement with these services has been limited or refused and these problems continue to persist to such extent that the parents

have not shown the ability or commitment to sustain consistent care and parenting to the infant Child 4 and there is no indication this

is likely to change in the foreseeable future. I note that the HSE has committed to continue to assist and direct the parents to

necessary supports.

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

13. Under section 47 of the 1991 Act, 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 4 to for a period of 6 weeks; and

(ii) a planned or unplanned change of current foster placement of the infant Child 4.

14. In addition, I make the following directions:

(i) After Care Review for the infant Child 4 on her 17th birthday on [date given] to assess her after care service

needs.

(ii) Court to review progress in care on 23 October 2013

(iii) The GAL reappointed four weeks before the dates set out at para 13 (i) and (ii) above.

15. With respect to the future care of the infant Child 4:

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

and

(ii) I order access between the infant Child 4 and her parents pursuant to section 37 of the 1991 Act.