District Court grants HSE directions for care review and supervision orders for children with complex needs.

[2012] IEDC 1

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE

APPLICANT

-AND-

ED & JD

RESPONDENTS

CHILD CARE ACT, 1991— SECTION 18(1) AND 19(1)

GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS ACT 1964 — SECTION 11

IN THE MATTER OF CHILD 5, CHILD 6, CHILD 7, CHILD 8, CHILD 9, CHILD 10

13 January 2012

Background History Overview

1. This case concerns five children of a family of ten in respect of whom the HSE seek full care orders until each of them has reached

his or her majority. Two of the five children have a working diagnosis of autism and ADHD; however, improvements in their respective

behaviour and communication since being received into care have cast doubt on this diagnosis and reassessment is to be undertaken.

The five children present with behavioural, educational, health, or psychological needs of varying levels of intensity and complexity.

The evidence tendered suggests that each need significant support from remediation services.

2. The 5 children currently in the interim care of the HSE are:

Child 5 (13 years of age);

Child 7 (9 years of age);

Child 8 (6 years of age);

Child 9 (5 years of age); and

Child 10 (3 years of age).

3. There are two more dependent children in the family.

4. Child 6 is 11 years old and the sixth child of the family. Child 6 was originally taken into HSE care in December 2010 with his siblings

however the HSE found it difficult to locate a suitably proximate foster placement for him. Child 6 has a working diagnosis of mild

intellectual disability, speech and language difficulties, and ADHD. He was originally placed with an older sibling but this placement was

untenable in the medium term. He is now placed with his father with an array of support services and the HSE seek a supervision

order in respect of Child 6. The father seeks an order for the sole custody of Child 6 and has been assessed by the HSE as having

sufficient parental capacity to assume this role provided he avails of recommended support services. The mother is consenting to this

order. The HSE propose that Child 6 will have only supervised access with his mother.

5. Child 4 is 15 years old and is also a dependent member of the family. He was originally taken into care and placed with is older

sibling but ultimately returned to the care of his mother under a supervision order. It was not possible to secure a conventional foster

placement for Child 4 and the evidence tendered suggests that he has little interest in being in foster care or engaging with social

workers. He did engage with the Barnardo’s service over a period of time but became alienated when the care worker he had

connected moved from that service. He is currently involved with the Probation and Welfare Service. The HSE is not seeking a further

supervision order in respect of Child 4 and is satisfied with the care which he is receiving with his mother who is fully co-operative

with the HSE.

6. The other relevant members of the family are the three older siblings, Child 1 (born in October 1988), and her two children —

Grandchild 1 who is aged seven and has a diagnosis of autism and Grandchild 3 aged four months — and Child 2 (born in June 1990)

who has a two year old child, Grandchild 2. Child 3, born in November 1992, is the eldest brother and he has a newborn son

(Grandchild 4). Child 3 has a history of anti-social behaviour and acute psychological disorder with associated involvement in drugs

and criminal behaviour during adolescence. There was a serious stabbing incident perpetrated on this young man in April 2009 in the

family home which traumatised him and other family members. One year later, there was an alleged self-harm incident which was

again traumatic. This young man resides with his mother but spends significant amounts of time with the mother of his young son. He

also visits his father.

7. Both Child 1 and Child 2 have provided support to each of their parents at different times. None of the three adult siblings have

participated in the proceedings.

8. There is also a maternal grandmother aged 81 years who lives in Country 1 and a brother of the mother who lives in Ireland;

however, they are not close. There is a paternal grandmother aged 77 who lives in Country 1. The extended family have played no

part in the proceedings and only a minor part in the history and have had little contact with the mother, father, or the family.

9. The history of the relationship is somewhat unclear. The mother and father met in or around 1985 and married in Country 1 in 1988.

The three older children were born in Country 1 and the parties lived together in in Country 1 until in or around 1993 at which point

the parties separated. The mother’s evidence was that she ascertained, through something Child 1 said, that her husband was

involved with another woman who was also pregnant with his child when she was pregnant with Child 3. This was upsetting for her as

there was only four months between his child and their son Child 3. She suffered Post Natal Depression and a form of reactive

depression and was hospitalised. In the period her children were cared for by her husband who was now living with his partner and

their daughter. Her evidence was that when she called to their residence in order to have contact with her children on her release

from hospital, it was made problematic by her husband’s partner and it was in this context that the court proceedings in Country 1

took place.

10. An Addendum Court Welfare Report dated 12 December 1994 appears to indicate that Court Orders from Country 1 existed giving

the father residence of the three children with his then partner. The mother’s ‘contact’ or access to the children was originally

resolved consensually, but then the father and his partner resisted ‘staying contact’. The report is supportive of staying contact at

least on a trial basis. It also notes that, whether consciously or unconsciously, Child 1 and Child 2 had been made too aware of adult

issues in the care of the father and his partner, but that all three children enjoyed an affectionate relationship with their mother. The

children were aged 6, 4, and 2 years respectively at that time. The father’s evidence is that the Court ultimately reversed the

Custody Order so that the children went into the care of their mother.

11. The mother’s evidence is that she and her husband restored their relationship in Country 1 and the mother became pregnant with

her son Child 4. The proceedings in Country 1 then went into abeyance.

12. The father’s evidence was that he moved to Ireland in or around 1994, that he stayed first of all in B&Bs with Child 3, and that he

then relocated to a council flat where he lived with the three older children. His recollection is that it was only at that point that he

was joined by the mother and the parties reconciled and were given a Local Authority House in County 1 in or around 1995.

13. However, this account again differs from the mother’s evidence that the parties reconciled in Country 1 and she then became

pregnant with Child 4. Thereafter, the father moved to Ireland with Child 3, and she joined him in January 1996 with the other two

children in her care and when she was five months pregnant with Child 4 who was born in Ireland in May of 1996. The parties resided

in a council flat which the father had secured in County 1. At this point, the flat was unsuitable for family needs and she went to a

TD to secure a house for them. They were allocated a nice house in County 1; however, as they were subject to verbal abuse

because they were from Country 1, they moved to the current residence and she has resided there with the children for the past 15

years.

14. The couple then had their first Irish born son, Child 4, in 1996, followed by Child 5 in 1998, Child 6 in 2000, Child 7 in 2002, Child 8

in 2005, Child 9 in 2006, and Child 10 in 2008.

15. The parties did not live together continuously throughout that period. The mother complains that the father did not continuously

support her and was absent for much of the time and she ultimately removed his name from the tenancy of the family home, although

he had a key to the house at various times.

16. There is a documented history of court applications. The father issued both a barring and safety summons in October 2001. He

also sought an Interim Barring Order grounded on information sworn by him alleging that the mother was guilty of persistent verbal and

physical abuse against him and the children. It also alleged a violent assault on an eleven year old child on 31 October 2001. At this

time, the mother was pregnant with Child 7. In October 2002, the father again sought sole custody of his three older children. His

evidence was that he did this on legal advice, which suggested that he had little chance as a father of securing the custody of young

children. The father has a significant speech and language impediment and believes that he was not listened to in his efforts to seek

protection for himself and for his children.

17. The public local health office nursing report dated 12 December 2011 records that the father took the three older children to

Country 1 in July 2002. This left the mother to cope with four young children, the youngest of whom was born in February that year.

It is unclear when the father returned to Ireland with the three older children.

18. The mother issued custody proceedings in November 2002 and was granted custody of her seven children in December 2002.

19. The District Court had the benefit of three reports pursuant to section 20 of the Child Care Act, 1991 from Social Worker 1. The

first dated 11 September 2003, the second dated 15 October 2003, and the third dated 23 January 2004. The Court’s attention was

also drawn to a Court Welfare Report dated 12 December 1994 by the Court Welfare Officer which only emerged in the course of the

proceedings and which gives an indication of the emerging family dynamic. The father wrongfully removed Child 2 to Country 1 during

the currency of the Irish proceedings. This was ultimately resolved by a consent order in the Family Division in Country 1 dated 19

August 2003. By a further District Court order, the father was granted interim joint custody of Child 2 on 28 March 2003. On-going

HSE intervention was required when Child 2 ran away to Country 1.

20. It is fair to say that the family was offered services from several different agencies and operated in crisis mode on an almost

continuous basis and did not engage in follow up assessment or treatment. It is also fair to say that the parents have a complex

relationship of long duration involving a great deal of conflict.. There is little doubt that all of the children were exposed to intense

conflict and carry the long-term effects of dysfunctional conflict patterns.

21. It is the father’s evidence that the parties separated in or about 2005 and it is the mother’s evidence that their relationship was

an on-off nature as evidenced by the birth of children to the couple in 2005, 2006, and 2008. It is accepted that the father has

maintained a residence separate to the mother over the last six years but would also come and go to the family home.

22. Up to May 2010, each parent denied, when questioned by the HSE, that there were any issues of physical violence or abuse going

on in the home. There is evidence of serious allegations being made by the father and an older child against the mother but these

were not pursued.

23. The immediate trigger to the commencement of the proceedings was that in December 2010, Child 1 and Child 2 (the two older

children) complained to Barnardos Teen Parenting Service that they had been physically and emotionally abused by their mother over

the years and that the abuse was on-going for their younger siblings.

24. The Senior Social Work Practitioner, with the consent of the father, spoke to Child 5 on 16 December 2010 at Child 1’s home.

Child 5 substantiated the account of on-going physical and emotional abuse and has not retracted this account to the HSE, her

foster mother, or to the GAL to date. The allegations included regular instances of the children being struck by their mother with her

hand and with implements including a brush and mop. There were also allegations of the younger children being lifted off the floor by

their hair or ears, and being grabbed about the throat. An account was given of the older children being taken from school to mind

the younger children, of the children being neglected and not being cared for or provided for, being shouted at and abused in a hurtful

and demeaning manner, and on occasions, being left home alone. Child 7, 8, and 9 have each disclosed episodes of being hit or

slapped by their mother (and in the case of Child 9, being slapped by his father) while living at home. The children are also very rough

in their interaction with one another.

25. There is no medical evidence substantiating the physical abuse by the mother at the level and intensity complained of by the

children. There were over ten agencies working with the family when the children were taken into care. The children were sent to

school and crèche regularly and no concerns were ever expressed. The Public Health Nurse (“PHN”) of the HSE Health Centre was

involved with the family since 2002. The mother linked well with the PHN Health Centre and had a good relationship and record of

attendance at clinics. There is no evidence of physical abuse however there are on-going references to the mother finding it difficult

to cope with the day-to-day management of a large family particularly after the birth of a child. Several of the children presented

with speech and language difficulties and behavioural difficulties and two of the children were diagnosed with autism (Child 7 and Child

8).

Applications and Position

26. The HSE in this case alleges that the threshold criteria for making orders under section 18(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the Child Care

Act 1991 are satisfied by reason of the evidence tendered concerning the long history of neglect and physical and emotional abuse

which the five children have suffered whilst in the care of their parents. It is their case that the children would be unlikely to receive

the adequate care and protection unless such orders are made.

27. The HSE seek a Supervision Order in respect of Child 6 who is in the care of his father and have indicated that unless an order for

sole custody is made in respect of Child 6 they will seek an Interim Care Order in respect of him to prevent a change in his primary

care.

28. These applications are supported by the Guardian ad litem for the six children who emphasises in particular that the huge

improvements made in respect of each of the five children placed in care with foster carers consistently availing of targeted supports.

Her primary points of departure from the HSE concern her anxiety that the Care Plans should contain more specific details as to how

the foster families for each of the children will be supported to deal with the particular needs of each individual child to provide a

secure base for remediation. It is her view that on-going advice from the psychologists who assessed the parents and children should

be available to the foster families to ensure the stability of the sundry placements and the security of the children within them. She is

also concerned that service provision specified in the individual plan for each particular child together with the additional provision

which emerged in evidence should be specifically scheduled and embedded in the Plans. She was anxious to assure in this way the

health, development, and welfare needs of each individual child and to avoid any delays which would in her view further impede their

remediation. She is anxious to ensure that the assessment and approval of foster placements take place expeditiously; she is

concerned that Child 8’s long-term foster placement is clarified as expeditiously as possible and also that Child 8’s future placement is

clarified. She is also concerned that the father’s expectations around access are further clarified. The GAL is also anxious that Child 6

who is in the care of his father receives speech and language therapy without delay to facilitate his entry and success in secondary

school. She is also anxious that the daily homework support recommended by the psychologists should be identified and put in place

given the father’s literacy and numeric difficulties. She is also concerned that the YAP service continues indefinitely for Child 6 given

his circumstances.

29. The GAL, in her report, has carefully explored the wishes and feelings of each of the children and she is supporting the making of

the five Care Orders until each child achieves his or her majority and the making of a supervision order in respect of Child 6 in the care

of his father.

30. The father’s position is that he seeks the return of his five children to his care. If this is not possible, he seeks the return of as

many of his children as is possible in particular Child 5 who does not have special needs. He will consent to a Supervision Order in

respect of the children returned to his care and will agree to a transitioned return to his care to meet their welfare requirements. It is

his position that he is caring adequately for Child 6 with support and could provide a good home for the other children also with

sufficient support. He is also asking the Court to make Directions under section 47 of the 1991 Act in respect of Child 6 so that

Speech and Language therapy is made available to him within two months to support his entry into secondary school. If the five

children are to remain in care, he seeks weekly unsupervised access with his children. He concedes that on the two occasions that he

had unsupervised access once with Child 9, once with Child 8 he failed to follow HSE directions and told the boys not to tell the social

workers. He accepts that he should have not done this. His position is that this would not happen again and that he believes that

supervision of his access is demeaning, undermining and unnecessary.

31. The mother’s position is that her children should not have been placed in the care of the HSE and that she did not abuse her

children in the manner or to the extent alleged. She managed as best she could. When the children were in her primary care, the

children were sent to school and were very rarely sick or hospitalised — they were each healthy when they came into care. She

acknowledged that she is far from perfect when stressed. She also acknowledged that she shouted at the children and that the

children, Child 5 in particular, are sensitive. She believes that she was too “laid back” as a parent and the children largely ignored her

correction. She loves her children and she does not accept the psychologist’s opinion that she is not attached to her baby Child 10.

She believed that the psychologist’s diagnosis of her as having a narcissistic personality disorder does not mean that she is mentally

unwell and is of the view that everyone has some level of personality disorder. She asserted that her older children and Child 5 have

restored their relationship with her and accepts maintains that they exaggerated the problems in the home. Her daughter, Child 5,

visits and phones her and she has never hidden this from the HSE. She babysat for Child 1’s baby. She is doing a FÁS course and

would like an office job regardless of the outcome of the Court. If the Court grants a Care Order, she wants a greater level of access

with her children. She will continue to co-operate in an open manner with the Social Work Department.

Threshold Criteria of Section 18 Child Care Act, 1991

32. The threshold criteria set out in the 1991 Act provide a protection for both adults and children and therefore families from

interference in their lives by the State through the making of Care Orders. This satisfies both the provisions of the Irish Constitution

and the essential object of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There is an essential difference between the

threshold criteria set out in section 17 of the 1991 Act (Interim Care Order) and section 18 of the 1991 Act (Care Order). In the

former case, the Court must be satisfied that an application for a care order has been made or is about to be made, and that there is

reasonable cause to believe that any of the circumstances mentioned at paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of section 18(1) exists or has

existed with respect to the child. In the case of a Care Order, however, the Court must be satisfied that:

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

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

(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.

A lower threshold is set for section 17 for the making of interim care orders as it recognises the existence of proceedings in which it is

alleged that the threshold criteria are to be met and satisfied on particular grounds. The Supreme Court in the case of North Western

Health Board v W (H) [2001] IESC 90 affirms that the State may only interfere with a family unit to protect the rights of an individual

member of the family if the threshold criteria of the 1991 Act have been met. The test to determine when there should be an

intervention by the courts is established in light of the Constitution, especially Article 40.3, 41, and Article 42.5.

Article 42.5 states:

“[i]n exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the

State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents,

but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child”.

33. The issue to be determined by the Court is whether the threshold criteria set out in section 18 have been met in respect or each

of the five children whom the HSE wish to take into the care. Even if the threshold criteria have been met, in any particular case, the

court must determine whether the remediation work required according to the expert evidence tendered needs to be undertaken “out

of home” by taking the children into the long-term care of the HSE or whether it can be addressed while in the care of either of their

parents in joint custody shared care or sole custody/access regime with HSE support.

34. The Court has been asked to make a Supervision Order in respect of one child and must be satisfied in respect of this child that

the threshold criteria of section 19 have been met.

35. The Court has been asked to determine issues of custody of one child and to determine issues of access in respect of all of the

children.

36. The Court has also been asked to make directions under section 47 in the event that care orders or a supervision order is made in

this case on the basis of the welfare of the children. The GAL requests the Court to make directions as set out in her report dated 1

January 2012 and, as requested through her counsel at the hearing, to augment the Care Plans of the individual children and to

ensure that that service provision and placement security are achieved. The father, through his counsel, equally asks the Court to

make directions to ensure services for the child in his care are provided in a timely manner as he is prepared to consent to a

Supervision Order required by the HSE with specific conditions as notified to the Court. The HSE requests the Court not to make any

directions under section 47 if Care Orders and a Supervision Order are made because the HSE will continue to discharge its statutory

function, and the Care Plan for each individual child will not remain static but will evolve with the changing requirements of each child.

Furthermore, counsel for the HSE advances that the HSE must balance the requirements of a very large pool of children coming within

its remit who have a call on its services and therefore it must determine the priority of services against that background.

Fact-Finding

37. The family have been known to the HSE and other agencies both in Ireland and in Country 1 since in or about 2001 as a high

conflict family with on-going disputes over a very long period of time in relation to custody and care of children. There have been

allegations made by the father over the years of physical and emotional abuse perpetrated against him and the children and also

allegations that the mother neglects the children and does not provide properly for their care. These allegations have been advanced

at times of high conflict. The three eldest children experienced significant moves in jurisdiction and changes of care giving between

mother and father between 1993 and 2003/2004. Child 2 ran away from both parents to Country 1 in 2004 and made allegations

against her mother which she declined to pursue when she returned to the care of her mother subsequently notwithstanding the order

for interim joint custody made by the District Court in favour of the father in March 2003.

38. In 2005, there were eight children in the family, notwithstanding the fact that the father maintained his own separate residence.

A number of the children presented with speech and language delay, behavioural difficulties and the two youngest children at that

time, Child 7 and Child 8, were diagnosed with autism. While the father’s evidence was that the relationship ended in 2005, Child 9

and Child 10 were born in 2006 and 2008. I accept the evidence of the mother that the marital relationship was in fact quite complex

and enmeshed throughout the period and continues to be so to this day.

39. There were a number of agencies involved with the family and the mother was provided services by the child protection service

patch team between 2003 and April 2010. The pattern of sporadic attendance at some services by the mother is hardly surprising

given the sundry needs of such a large family, some of whom had special needs. Factored into this must be the fact that, on his own

evidence, the father was not always present to give practical support to the mother in the care of the children. His evidence is that

he was merely a guest in her house and did as much as he could to assist her in the practical care of the children and act as a buffer

at times of stress. While this is accepted, the mother’s evidence is equally accepted that she could not rely on the father’s presence

and support consistently.

40. There is no medical evidence of physical assault, ill-treatment, or sexual abuse in this case. Some of the children have made

allegations of physical assaults on them and of witnessing assaults on other family members. The adult children in particular triggered

the HSE seeking care orders in this case but they have not been prepared to give evidence in the proceedings. The Project Leader of

the Teen Parent Support Programme, gave evidence that Child 1 and Child 2 made disclosures to a member of Teen Parent in

December 2010. Her service made a referral to the HSE in accordance with Children First Guidelines. She herself spoke to both Child 1

and Child 2 on the 17 December 2010 and had no doubt but that what they recounted was a faithful account of their experiences.

Neither Child 1 nor Child 2 gave evidence in these proceedings and their statements to third parties would not come within the ambit

of section 23 of the Children Act 1997 as admissible hearsay evidence. The younger children, Child 5, 7, 8, and 9, have all reported

the experience of either being personally hit or witnessing another family member being hit or throttled by their mother. Child 9 has

reported being slapped by his father. Child 8’s rough play with her dolls has been considered to be significant by the social workers

and psychologists. Child 5, 4, 6, and 8 have been seen to hit one another and be generally rambunctious with one another. As against

this, the many agencies dealing with this large family have never drawn attention to signs of physical abuse in respect of any of the

children. The statements made by the children come within the ambit of section 23 of the Children act, 1997 as admissible hearsay

evidence in principle. The weight to be attached to those statements however must fairly reflect the circumstances under which the

statements were obtained. What is quite clear and consistent from the evidence is that life in the family was chaotic. The HSE’s main

concern has always been the mother’s stress levels, her inability to cope with the complex needs of her large family, her poor

parenting style marked by ineffectual shouting at the children, her failure to impose boundaries and consistency, and her lack of

support. The father’s parenting role was seen by the agencies as intermittent, if benign. The father has given evidence of physical

assault and ill-treatment meted out by his wife to the children from an early stage in the marriage. He is rather ‘foggy’ about precise

dates and the sequence of events of specific incidents. He has explained that this lack of intervention on his part regarding the

children must be considered against the background of his insecure footing in the household, the fact that he had a speech /language

impediment and was not successful in making his case in Court during the years 2001–2004. As against this, however, he did have

periods of sole care of some of the children during this period and restored the family unit with his wife. He also denied that there was

any abuse in the home in May 2010, although he reversed his position in this regard in December 2010.

41. There is clear evidence of unintentional neglect in this case by both the mother and the father. Evidence from the Clinical

Forensic Psychologist and Psychotherapist, and the Clinical/Educational Psychologist and Psychotherapist, has been of assistance to

the Court. The cognitive/educational assessment of each parent and the parenting capacity assessment in respect of each parent

make it quite clear that each parent is operating under disadvantage.

42. In the case of the mother, the Clinical Forensic Psychologist and Psychotherapist assessed her overall level of intelligence to be

within the low average range with some scores (in Processing Speed) above average and some (in Perceptual Reasoning) below

average. She has a good level of literacy and low average numeracy scores. This assessment would not cause difficulty in the

parenting of her children. However, he also found that the mother met the DSM-IV criteria for a diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality

Disorder. He felt that she lacked empathy with her children and focused more on how circumstances affected her personally. He

considered this to be a serious risk factor with regard to her parenting capacity. The additional factors which were acknowledged to

impact on her parenting capacity included her poor relationship with her husband, her lack of family support, and her ineffective

engagement with professional supports services. He noted that when he observed access, she had loud ineffective communication

with the children in her efforts to organise them.

43. Both he and the Clinical/Educational Psychologist and Psychotherapist considered the Narcissistic Personality Disorder to be a

static risk factor which was not readily amenable to change. The Clinical/Educational Psychologist and Psychotherapist stated that

there are some promising psychological treatments in use which may be helpful depending on the willingness of the subject to alter

ingrained patterns of behaviour. The reports tendered note that the psychological consensus was that Child 4 should be placed with

his father with only supervised access to his mother. It is significant that this child chose to live with his mother. She has fully

complied with the requirements of the HSE under a Supervision Order which they do not propose to renew as they are clearly satisfied

with her care of him. It is also significant that Child 5 has chosen to have unsupervised and unsupported informal access with her

mother in face of the recommendation of the HSE and psychologists. The recommendation for supervised access was made as it was

considered that the children would be exposed to emotional manipulation, triangulation, and the risk of verbal/emotional abuse by their

mother. The mother’s access remains supervised in respect of the children in care. It was the Clinical Forensic Psychologist and

Psychotherapist’s professional opinion that the mother’s inability to place the children’s welfare ahead of her own issues was typified

by her telling Child 5 in December that she proposed to kill herself on the anniversary of the children being taken into care, such was

her distress.

44. In the case of the father, they assessed his overall level of intelligence to be within the low average range and within the test his

non-verbal intelligence scored was found to be in the Average range whilst his verbal intelligence scored in the Low Average range.

He is illiterate and has limited numeracy skills. He has significant speech and language difficulties. For these reasons, it was not

possible to undertake a formal personality assessment but did not appear to have a personality disorder. The psychologists believe

that his failure to advocate for his children in the context of being abused at home has serious implications for his parenting capacity

and this is not likely to change in the near future though he could benefit from support services. The additional factors which were

acknowledged to impact on his parenting capacity included his poor relationship with his wife, his lack of extended family and peer

support. The father is caring for Child 6 and the HSE are satisfied in that regard. The father is prepared to consent to a supervision

order in respect of Child 6 and to abide by the conditions specified by the HSE. He has now expressed himself to be willing to engage

in both personal counselling and a parenting course, both of which he was previously reluctant to engage in.

45. Both psychologists gave extensive evidence of their assessment of the six children in these proceedings. They both agreed that

the mother has a narcissistic personality disorder. In their opinion, it is very difficult for the mother to acknowledge the individual

experiences of the children. It was their opinion that she lacked the ability to empathise. In their view, because some of the children

had above normal needs, they failed to affirm her parenting and this made it particularly difficult for the mother to cope as a stressed

parent of ten children. It was their view that the mother’s threshold of parental capacity was very low and her limit could be easily

reached. It was their view that Child 5 was a parentified child and stepped up to the nurturing role when her older sisters left home.

They gave evidence of the individual needs of each of the children and concluded that in the case of Child 5 she requires the space

to be a child; she is by nature a people pleaser and may lie to keep the peace. She is a child with special needs in the emotional

sense and she presents a rosy exterior which hides the reality of very low self esteem. It was their professional opinion that neither

parent could give Child 5 what she requires at the moment and she needs protection in so far as is possible for the family dynamic.

Child 6 is operating with a mild intellectual disability and ADHD. He is a difficult child to raise and will need significant supports if placed

in the care of his father who loves him and does his best for him. Educational support in particular is required to support his transition

to secondary school and the on-going input of a YAP worker. There are gaps in his care with his father in her opinion and these need

to be supported. The Psychologist referred to the recommendations set out in her report with regard to the supports needed for Child

6. Child 7 has a mild intellectual disability (ADHD) and a working diagnosis of autism. He is also a difficult child to raise. He is well

placed at present but his foster carers will need consistent on-going support to deal with his current and evolving needs. In her

professional opinion, the father would not have sufficient capacity to meet Child 7’s needs. Child 8 also has a mild intellectual disability

and low average ability. His behaviour has improved significantly since coming into care and he is to be reassessed by the Clinic in

respect of the diagnosis of autism. He has on-going motor and sensory difficulties and mild speech and language difficulties. In her

professional opinion, neither parent, separately or together, would be in a position to adequately meet his needs — needs that are

currently met in his foster placement, although he will have to move from this foster placement. Child 9 has a low average intellectual

range of ability insofar as it was possible to assess this at his age. He has specific speech and language difficulties. There is potential

for improvement. Child 9’s special needs relate to his emotional and social development and he is a vulnerable child in this regard. The

professional view of the psychologist was that neither mother nor father separately or together could be in a position to adequately

meet Child 9’s needs for parenting. It is her opinion that he should be reassessed at about the age of seven years to ensure that he

is appropriately placed educationally. Child 8’s assessment originally was of “frozen watchfulness” and she has improved in her

interactions since coming into care. The foster family need a lot of energy for her. She suffers from tantrums and was quite violent in

her play with dolls. Speech and language therapy is essential for her at this time. It was her view that she has a selective

attachment to her mother and her attachment to her father was different. She will have to move foster placement and the support of

both parents will be important in this regard. It was her evidence that mother’s access should be supervised and that ideally father’s

access should move towards unsupervised access however issues of trust in his relationship with the children and his relationship with

the HSE needed to be repaired in light of the incidents in November when he brought the children to both the mother’s house and

Child 1’s house telling them not to tell the social workers about it. It was her hope from the children’s point of view that this

remediation could take place and that Child 7 could understand what was at issue for the children when placed in such a situation. It

was her professional opinion that the father would need to engage in a tailored parenting course to develop an insight.

46. The Senior Social Work Practitioner and Social Worker 2 gave extensive evidence supporting the reports provided to the Court.

The evidence tendered was that each of the children has his/her own experience of life within the large family and has views and

assessments of their parents. Neither parent comes away unscathed from these assessments although most of the blame is laid by

older children at the feet of the mother though they are not prepared to regard their father as entirely a victim. The tipping point

appears to have been reached in 2010 following on from the serious assault one year earlier of Child 5 (03 April 2009). This had a very

traumatic effect on Child 1 who most unfortunately was also experiencing anti-social behaviour both within and outside of school and

criminal behaviour outside the home.

47. The random crisis intervention availed of by the mother has been criticised. Between April 2010 and December 2010, there were

over 10 agencies involved with the family. The only positive engagement by the mother appears to have been with the Public Health

Nursing Department. The Family support service report of the 2 December 2011 complains of the mother expecting staff to “do things

for her but not undertake tasks with the family support worker”. In May 2010, a referral to the Family Support service from the Family

Resource Centre noted that all the children were “acting out and/or presenting with some degree of special need”. It was noted that

stress and disorganisation were an on-going feature for this family. There were concerns about the aggressive behaviour of Child 4, 6,

7, and 8 in school and with support services. Child 7, 8, and 9 were assessed with speech and language delay and Child 6, 7, and 8

were all diagnosed with ADHD. Child 7 and 8 were diagnosed with autism. In addition to which, the mother had the care of a baby and

a history of post-natal depression and poor family support. The HSE’s long-standing involvement with the family was one of family

support until December 2010. The on-going reference to the mother withdrawing from support services is hardly surprising given the

task of coping with the day-to-day needs of such a large family. Neither is it unreasonable that she wanted some things done for her

given the level of care required by the large family.

48. The framework assessment report compiled by Social Worker 2, and Social Worker 3 logs the developmental needs of the children

between March and December 2011 and concludes in the case of the five children their needs are of such depth and breath that they

each require to be placed in the care of the HSE until they reach 18 years.

49. School reports in respect of Child 4, 5, and 6 evidence the increasing pressure of children within the household.

50. The Access Worker, gave evidence that she has supervised access since the children came into care. She gave evidence in

support of her Access Report dated 16 December 2011. Her observations of both parents were that neither parent has responded to

modelling in relation to boundary setting or safe play for the children. A lot of supervision is needed as the boys can be quite

challenging. Two access workers are needed with the mother, following the psychological reports, her access is always supervised. If

one child runs off, one access worker is required for pursuit and one to stay with mother and the other children. All of the children

find it difficult to accept correction or direction at access however their behaviour has settled a lot in the year. Unfortunately, the

children tend to revert to established family patterns of dysfunctional behaviour in the course of access. Both parents in their own

way struggle to cope with all of the children at the same time. Her evidence was that the father’s interaction is quieter with the

children and he finds it difficult to help the boys to regulate their behaviour when in a group. She noted that individual visits between

the mother and Child 8 have been positive. She noted that father needed support to meet the individual needs of the children. She

also gave evidence that Child 8 told her that he was worried about telling lies and keeping secrets as his father told him not to tell

about being brought to Child 1’s house on 23 November 2011. The Access Worker indicated that she has a social care diploma and

has been an access worker since 1996. It was her professional opinion that the issue of access must synchronise with the child’s

needs more than the parent’s wishes. In particular, regarding the father’s wish for unsupervised access, it was her opinion that he

needed a lot of support in boundary setting and establishing routines though she accepted that he was warm and affectionate

towards his children.

51. A support services worker gave evidence to support her reports of the 19 December 2011 in respect of her observations of

access by mother and father. She indicated that she had no professional qualifications. Her observations are set out in her report.

She noted that the mother shouts at the children and is ineffective in setting boundaries for them. It was her experience that she

was easily distracted by people. Her observation in respect of the father’s access was that he was quite detached in the beginning

but his involvement has improved significantly when access moved outdoors and he could do things with the children. She noted that

he was poor at setting safe boundaries for the children. In joint access visits, she noted the mother and father tended to give mixed

signals to the children.

52. The GAL gave extensive evidence to the Court in respect of how she went about securing the wishes and feelings of the children

and her assessment of the welfare needs. She has emphasised that it is important that the mother is not judged harshly as the task

of caring for this number of children without familial support would often be entirely overwhelming for even the most able of parents.

The diagnosis of personality disorder can help to understand the threshold of coping and it is her professional view like that of the two

psychologists that while she loves her children and wants to do her best for them her parenting capacity is not matched by the needs

of the children either individually or as a group. While there is no diagnosis of personality disorder in the case of the father, he is unfit

for the task. It is also her opinion that the parents’ relationship remains enmeshed and is likely to continue in that vein. While it is

regrettable that the children have been placed separately, this may have had the benefit of separately addressing their needs in

foster care. It is her professional opinion that her role as the children’s GAL, focused on their discreet care, obliges her to seek

directions under section 47 to ensure that their needs are met in the welfare disposal stage of this case. She was at pains to point

out that this was not to be seen as a negative assessment of the professional work of the Social Work Department.

Decision in respect of Application for 5 Care Orders

53. Having read the Booklet of Reports Filed and the additional reports furnished to the Court in this case and having heard evidence

over five days I am satisfied that the threshold criteria of section 18(a), (b), and (c) have been met in respect of each of the five

children and that each of them has been neglected by their parents and that in respect of each of child his/her health development or

welfare has been avoidably impaired or neglected and that his/her health development and welfare is likely to be avoidably impaired or

neglected unless they are taken into care.

54. The ultimate aim when a child needs State Care should be family reunification if possible with parents. Being mindful of the case of

Olsson v Sweden (1992) 17 EHRR 134, it is clear that the right to contact between a parent and child should not be gratuitously

interfered with but must be tempered where the welfare of the child so requires. A legally permitted interference must pursue a

legitimate aim and be proportionate and necessary. The interests as well as the rights and freedoms of all concerned must be taken

into account but where contact with a child would harm the interests of a child or interfere with the child’s Article 8 rights a

proportionate balance must be struck. In the case of the mother, it would appear from the evidence tendered that her engagement

with the HSE since the children came into care has been open and co-operative. The triangulation effect apprehended by the

psychologists has not been evident in the case of the mother. On the evidence tendered, it would seem clear that, at the present

time, access to the children as a group by either parent should be supported access at a particular venue rather than the more

pejorative term supervised access. Access should respect the dignity of this family and its delicate web of relationships and in

particular access by the mother to Child 8 should be dealt with most sensitively. In my view, access must be at the discretion of the

HSE in both the case of the mother and the father at this time and either parent has the right to apply to court under section 37 if

dissatisfaction with such arrangements arises.

Decision in respect of Application for a Supervision Order

55. I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that Child 6 has been neglected and that his health, development,

and welfare have been avoidably impaired and neglected and that same is likely be avoidably impaired or neglected unless a

Supervision Order is made in respect of him. I am informed that the period of supervision sought by the HSE and agreed by the father

is six months. The HSE have specified elements of Child 6’s care which require the father to comply with and, insofar as those

requirements relate to attendance for medical or psychiatric examination, treatment or assessment at a hospital, clinic, or other place

specified, I make Directions in respect of same and insofar as they relate to other aspects of his care I make recommendations in

respect of same. A copy of the Supervision Order sought and the requirements of the HSE have already been made known to the

father and his legal representatives.

Decision in respect of Custody of Child 6

56. With regard to the question of custody, on the consent of the mother I am willing to make an order for custody of Child 6 to be

given to his father with access to his mother on such time and dates as may be agreed by the parents to reflect the reality that

currently pertains.

57. Directions with respect to Child 6: Child 6 is currently in the care of the HSE under an Interim Care order and placed by the HSE

with his father. The uncontroverted evidence adduced to the Court is that he requires speech and language therapy and in addition

to such therapy he requires assistance with his homework (in light of the difficulties under which his father operates with regard to

literacy and numeracy). He will also benefit from the on-going assistance of this currently allocated YAP worker. I direct pursuant to

section 47 that the HSE make provision for speech and language therapy for Child 6 and put in place arrangements for him to secure

assistance with his homework. I further recommend to the HSE that they continue to advocate for Child 6 so that he has the ongoing

assistance of his YAP worker through the current method of indirect service provision.

Directions

58. As to the request for Directions by both the GAL and the father, it is noted that the HSE have agreed to further augment the

Care Plan in respect of each child to acknowledge that in relation to supports for the children’s new attachments to long term foster

carers, that the foster placements will be supported by the making of psychological guidance, in relation to the children’s needs,

available to the foster families as required whether through training workshops on re-attachment issues as well as on-going contact

with a clinical psychologist. However, the Care Plans are also unclear on the issue of both Child 8’s long term placement and Child 10’s

long term placement. Both issues need to be addressed. In addition, there is no time frame built into the Care Plans for accessing the

services recommended by the psychologists and GAL for the six children. While the care plan is an organic document none the less

these are six children who clearly need significant remediation services and certainty in their lives. It is therefore appropriate to

review matters in this regard.

59. The following Directions are made pursuant to section 47 of the Child Care Act, 1991 in respect of matters affecting the welfare

of the five children coming into the care of the HSE:

1) That access between the children and their parents, siblings, and extended family should be at the discretion of

the HSE.

2) That the Care Plans and Assessment of Needs required by each of the children are reviewed by the HSE annually

and fully implemented.

3) That the HSE provide each parent with whatever assistance may be required by them to enable them to

overcome their respective disadvantages e.g. through the provision of psychological services and or counselling

services so that they can work towards fully understanding the individual and collective needs of their children

having regard to the welfare of the children in light of the evidence of the psychologists.

4) That the HSE assist the father in securing literacy and numeric remedial services so that he can meaningfully

participate with Child 6 in his educational development.

5) That this case is to be re-entered before the Court in the event of a planned or unplanned change of the

children’s existing foster placements (other than in the case of Child 8 and Child 10). The re-entry to take place

before the change of foster placement unless the placement ends precipitously due to unforeseen circumstances.

The GAL be re-appointed and provided with all social work reports and be give access to files at least six weeks

before the date of re-entry in the case of a planned change of placement and as soon as practicable after the

precipitous event in the case of an unplanned change of placement.

6) That this case is to be re-entered before the Court in the event that any one of the children’s cases becomes

unallocated to a social worker and remains so unallocated for a period of six weeks. The child’s GAL be re-appointed

and provided with all social work reports and be give access to files at least six weeks before the date of re-entry.

7) That the case be re-entered on 30 April 2012 so that the Care Plans in respect of Child 8, 10, and 6 and can be

reviewed at that time on questions affecting the welfare of the particular child and that the GAL should remain

involved in the case and in all interaction and dialogue on the issues of the said three children until the care plans

have been perfected and the matter disposed of by the court on review.

8) That the GAL’s costs are to be assessed to today’s date and discharged by the HSE.