District Court grants Care Order under Child Care Act 1991 s.18 for 16-year-old with ADHD and criminal behavior.

[2012] IEDC 20

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE

APPLICANT

-AND-

BK

RESPONDENTS

CHILD CARE ACT, 1991— SECTION 18

IN THE MATTER OF A CHILD

14 November 2012

This is an application for a Care Order under section 18 of the Child Care Act, 1991 in respect of the Respondent’s child (“the child”)

who is 16 years of age.

1. The Respondent is the child’s mother. The child’s father is deceased.

2. The mother is separately represented by her solicitor and counsel within these proceedings.

3. The HSE is represented by its solicitor.

4. The child was appointed a Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”) on the 23 November 2011 to represent his separate interest in the

proceedings. The GAL is legally represented within the proceedings by his solicitor.

5. The child came into the care of the HSE on the 29 September 2002 with his younger sibling on the exercise of section 12 by An

Garda Síochána, but thereafter family reunification occurred following the granting of an Interim Care Order and the child was returned

to the care of his mother on 24 November 2002. The child then came to the attention of the HSE again in 2010 and was diagnosed

with ADHD by his psychiatrist. He then became involved in criminal antisocial behaviour and was sent to a Detention Centre. He was

subsequently received into voluntary care and thereafter an Interim Care Order was granted on 4 November 2011 and has been

extended thereafter to the date of this hearing today.

6. Social Worker 1 and Social Worker 2 gave evidence to support the reports to Court in which they had involvement with the file

admitted into evidence on consent. They each affirmed that the contents of the defined reports were true and that their respective

professional opinions were that the threshold criteria were met and continue to be met pursuant to section 18(1)(c) in respect of the

child in light of the following:

• Educational and psychological needs of the child.

• The child’s involvement within criminal activity.

• The child’s history of absconding from the family home and not returning for days at a time.

• The child’s general behaviour, engaging in anti-social activity, and potential alcohol abuse.

It was further submitted and conceded that a Care Order until the child reached 18 years was the only proportionate response

possible.

7. Counsel for the mother indicated that with regret her client does not feel that she can provide her child with the level of support

and supervision required to ensure his well being and she was not opposing the making of the Care Order until he reaches 18 years.

8. The child is currently in a very short-term placement with a former foster carer while he awaits sentence on charges before the

District Court. He is being supervised closely by the foster carer and is on strict bail conditions. The HSE has made application for a

secure placement for the child in two secure care facilities operated by the HSE and will apply for private placements if the

application is not successful. The child has had many placement moves. He is also waiting a psychological/psychiatric assessment.

The HSE adopt all the recommendations.

9. The GAL indicated to the Court the expressed ‘wishes’ of the child and his concerns regarding his welfare. He wishes a full

psychological and psychiatric forensic assessment of the child to be undertaken by the HSE for the reasons outlined in his report to

Court.

Section 18 Threshold Criteria

10. Having read the reports and booklets furnished and the GAL Report and the evidence of the social workers, I am satisfied that the

threshold criteria are met under section 18(1)(c). Furthermore, having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the HSE made

reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for the child coming into the care of the HSE, but due to circumstances prevailing

in this case this has not been possible as the child is now facing serious criminal charges and the Care Plan does not identify a long

term secure placement for him.

11. I note the consent of the mother regarding the making of the Care Order, and I note the manner in which the case has been

outlined by the HSE who have indicated that she loves her son and has been and continues to be deeply concerned for his welfare

and his future in light of the criminal charges pending against him.

12. I note that the HSE adopts all the recommendations of the GAL and propose to update the Care Plan and file same in Court as

expeditiously as possible and that they will engage with the GAL to identify the medical professional or professionals either within or

outside of the HSE to undertake the forensic assessments required.

13. I make a Care Order for the child until he is 18 years old on [date given].

14. Access should be at the discretion of the HSE within the parameters of section 37 to meet the needs of maintaining the parent,

child, and sibling relationship of all the parties.

Section 47 Directions

15. The Court makes the following directions pursuant to section 47 of the Child Care Act 1991:

• That the Court review the case on 27 February 2013 so that his long term Care Arrangements for this young

person can be identified; The GAL is to remain engaged until this happens and thereafter the GAL is to be

discharged with the usual order as to reasonable costs — such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

• That the updated Care Plan is to be filed in Court as approved by the GAL. That the care plan is to identify the

secure placement arrangements for the child and the therapeutic interventions proposed to address his serious

needs as identified in the GAL and Social Workers’ reports to Court, and the outcome of the criminal law proceedings

has been determined. Liberty to apply if the Care Plan is not approved by the GAL.

• That the Case is Re-Entered before the Court and the GAL is re-appointed four weeks before the date of re-entry

in the event that the case becomes unallocated to a Social Worker/Fostering Link Worker for a period of four

weeks.

• That After Care Review (on 17th birthday) occurs to assess After Care Services: date to be identified on the next

occasion the matter is before the Court.

• That application for costs by the mother’s legal team is to be reserved and will be determined at the conclusion of

the Review.