District Court grants interim care order for children due to parental neglect and substance abuse issues.

[2012] IEDC 22

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE

APPLICANT

-AND-

RC & EM

RESPONDENTS

CHILD CARE ACT, 1991— SECTION 18

IN THE MATTER OF CHILD 1 AND CHILD 2

20 November 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 1 (born in August 2002) and Child 2 (born in May 2012) and was heard on 17–21 September and 12-14 November

2012. Both children are currently in the care of the Health Service Executive (“HSE”). Child 1 was admitted to the care of the HSE

pursuant to an application for an Interim Care Order on 22 June 2011, which was extended by the Court on 28 occasions since that

date. Child 2 was admitted to the care of the HSE pursuant to an application for an Interim Care Order on 3 May 2012, which was

extended by the Court on 16 occasions since that date.

2. The HSE was legally represented in these proceedings by their barrister and solicitor.

3. Child 1 and Child 2’s interest in these proceedings were represented by their Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”) who was legally

represented by his barrister and solicitor. The GAL indicated to the Court her support for a Care Order in respect of both children and

recommended such Order for the full duration to allow for certainty.

4. The father, who is the second named respondent, was represented in these proceedings by his barrister and solicitor.

5. The mother, who is the first named respondent, was represented in these proceedings by her barrister and solicitor.

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

matter should proceed.

7. I am satisfied that the [District given] has jurisdiction to hear this case.

8. The mother attended Court for the first half day of this 8-day hearing and indicated her opposition to a Care Order and did not

accept any circumstances that would exist that would prevent her from having care of both children. Counsel for the mother later

advised the Court that she would consent to a Care Order for a short duration with access arrangements consistent with reunification

with her children and would be prepared to give undertakings to the Court. The mother’s legal representatives attended Court for the

duration of the hearing but were not further instructed by the mother.

9. Counsel for the father stated that he did not deny issues of past neglect in respect of Child 1 and indicated to the Court his

consent to a Care Order in respect of both children for one year with a review of reunification plan within six months. During the

course of cross-examination of the GAL, it emerged that the HSE received a complaint regarding Child 1’s foster placement. As a

result of this, the father withdrew his consent to a Care Order in respect of Child 1 and has requested to be provided with the date

the complaint was made and details of when an investigation of this complaint will be completed.

10. Counsel for each parent made applications to the Court regarding access. The mother sought to re-enter her application to

regulate access pursuant to section 37 of the 1991 Act in light of confirmation that access is currently suspended and wished to

have access resume immediately. The father had entered an application to regulate access pursuant to section 37 of the 1991 Act

and sought to have access increased in accordance with an amended Care Plan reflecting the goal of reunification. The GAL sought

clarification of the access being sought by the respondents. The Court allowed the mother to re-enter her application for access and

reserved any further access decision pending the findings at the conclusion of the hearing.

11. On 6 November 2012, the father lodged applications pursuant to section 6A and section 11(4) of the Guardianship of Infants Acts

1964-97 for guardianship of Child 2 and for sole custody of both children.

12. I find that the consent of the parents to a Care Order, albeit of a short duration, implies acceptance that the threshold criteria of

section 18 are met and note that the duration of the order and the question of access to either party is a Court matter.

13. I find the following facts to be common case of all the parties:

(a) Child 1 was born in August 2002.

(b) Child 2 was born in May 2012.

(c) The respondents are the parents of both children.

(d) A Supervision Order was sought and granted on 19 August 2010 and a further Supervision Order was sought and

granted on 18 February 2011.

(e) An Interim Care Order was applied for and granted in respect of Child 1 on 22 June 2011. Child 1 has been in the

care of foster-carers since that date and the foster-carers have indicated a willingness to provide long-term foster

care for Child 1 should it be required.

(f) An Interim Care Order was applied for and granted in respect of Child 2 on 3 May 2012. Child 2 has been in three

care placements since that date and her current private foster-carers have indicated a willingness to provide long-

term foster care for Child 2 should it be required and that the HSE have committed in Court to continued funding for

this private foster placement.

(g) The report of the Primary School, admitted into evidence without further proof.

14. The Court heard evidence of the GP from the mother’s addiction clinic. The GP confirmed and swore her letters dated 2 May 2012,

10 May 2012, and 16 May 2012 presented at Tab 73 and Tab 74 of the Booklet of Reports. She confirmed that the mother attended

for treatment for opiate addiction between 2007 and 2012 and described three ‘episodes’ of treatment. She described the mother’s

engagement for the first episode of treatment between January 2007 and September 2008 positively, with reasonable attendance by

the mother who ‘did well’. She described the mother’s engagement during the second episode of treatment between May 2009 and

July 2011 less positively. She described the mother’s presentation and engagement during the third episode of treatment between 22

February 2012 and early July 2012. The GP gave evidence that the mother presented in an advanced stage of pregnancy for

treatment as the mother was using heroin. The mother was uncertain of her due date and had not attended for ante-natal care. She

described how the mother started the process of resuming methadone treatment and very quickly stabilised. The GP confirmed her

letter of 2 May 2012:

“[o]ur last consultation was on Thursday the 26th April: on that occasion she did not appear intoxicated or in withdrawals. She told

me that she had not attended the pharmacy for methadone that day. I urged her to continue on methadone as sudden changes like

this would not be good for her baby or herself. She did not tell me that she intended stopping her methadone treatment.”

The GP also gave evidence under cross-examination that she had referred the mother to support services, counselling, the Drug

Treatment Centre Board, and Narcotics Anonymous. The GP advised the Court that the mother is highly likely to relapse.

The GP also gave evidence of the father’s attendance at her clinic on three occasions some time in March/April 2012, two in the

company of the mother where he appeared to be intoxicated, and one where he sought treatment for opiate addiction prior to Child

2’s birth.

15. The Court heard evidence of the Community Child Care Worker. She confirmed and swore the contents of her report at Tab 77 of

the booklet of Reports. She described the frequency and nature of her work with Child 1 since February 2012. She described Child 1

as a likeable, happy 10-year old. Her work with Child 1 consists of mainly non-directive work with Child 1 to establish a relationship of

trust with him and to work with Child 1 to help him to express his feelings, emotions, thoughts, wishes, and concerns. She described

family tree work, group work to develop social skills, observation of access between Child 1 and his mother and father separately, and

gave general observations on Child 1 and his placement. She stated that Child 1 will not talk about anything difficult and is as yet

reluctant to discuss the reasons why he is in care and stated this is not unusual given his age and that Child 1 loves structure and

routine. She described the progress Child 1 has made and that she has observed particularly with regard to his social skills

development and his recent academic achievement of student of the year. She stated that she observed one access visit with his

mother and sister (Child 2) where she described how the mother struggled to deal with the two children. She described access with

the father as very positive. She stated that Child 1 discusses being very happy in his foster-placement and that he would find it very

difficult to cope with chaos.

16. The Court heard evidence of Forensic Psychologist 1. He gave evidence of his supervision of Forensic Psychologist 2 in her

assessment and engagement with the mother and in the preparation of her report and confirmed he shares her opinions. Forensic

Psychologist 2’s evidence will be further outlined below.

Forensic Psychologist 1 confirmed and adopted his own report of the father at Tab 78 of the Booklet of Reports. He confirmed the

purpose of his engagement with the father was to carry out a Risk Assessment and assess the Psychological Parenting Capacity of

the father. Forensic Psychologist 1 confirmed that the father presented amicably and cooperated fully in the process. Forensic

Psychologist 1 stated that the father had attempted to skew the results of psychometric testing rendering the test uninterpretable;

however, he noted this did not appear to be malicious but told that the father has poor insight into his own functioning. Forensic

Psychologist 1 noted that the father reports to be in the early stages of sobriety and questioned the veracity of the father’s self-

reporting in his assessment. He confirmed that the father’s risk of perpetrating a violent offence in the future is low provided he

remains free of drugs, controls his use of alcohol, and does not recommence his relationship with the mother. Forensic Psychologist 1

confirmed that the father’s relationship with the mother is the most important factor in determining the risk of future violence.

Forensic Psychologist 1 also noted that if the father remains averse to addiction counselling, his likelihood of relapse into drugs or

management of alcohol consumption is high. Forensic Psychologist 1 noted that the father has demonstrated he has the ability to put

the needs of his children first but that his understanding of how to do this may be limited. His evidence was that if the father followed

all recommendations then it would be a reasonable requirement to include a reunification plan, over a 2-3 year period with a review

after 1 year in the children’s care plan; however if the father did not comply fully with the recommendations and all three identified

risk factors are not managed, then reunification would have to be reconsidered and it would be in the best interests of the children to

remain in long term care.

17. The Court heard the evidence of a teacher in the primary school. She adopted the reports at Tab 66 and 80 of the Booklet of

Reports. She gave evidence of Child 1’s presentation at school beginning in September 2010. She noted his absenteeism and lateness,

his poor personal hygiene, inadequate lunches, and general appearance of neglect. She described meetings with the mother where

these issues were raised and commented that Child 1’s presentation at these meetings was at times coherent and at other times

distracted. She noted no lasting improvement after the meetings.

18. The Court heard the evidence of the Principal of the school. He adopted the reports at Tab 66 & 80 of the Booklet of Reports and

concurred with the evidence of the teacher above regarding the concerns of the school about Child 1. He gave evidence of meetings

with the mother where he described her response as paying lip-service to the concerns raised and the mother’s defensive response

which he noted was not usual and that she appeared distracted and had difficulty concentrating. The Principal stated that the school

wrote to the mother outlining the concerns on 16 March 2011. He gave evidence of raising concerns informally with the father who

appeared to be concerned, and reported a brief improvement for some weeks before the difficulties emerged again; as the school was

not aware that the father is a guardian of Child 1, the father would not be formally notified of school concerns. He stated that since

Child 1 has come into care, he is on-time and regularly attending school with his home-work done and eating well.

19. The Court heard evidence of the Medical Social Worker at the Hospital. She did not rely on the report contained in the Booklet of

Reports and gave direct evidence upon which the Court is solely relying. She gave evidence of the mother’s first attendance on 14

March 2012 in the later stage of pregnancy where she did not complete the booking in procedure, missed some subsequent

appointments. She attended in April and then on at the start of May for the birth of Child 2 where some time after the birth there

appeared to be a delay of 45 minutes in obtaining the mother’s consent to admitting Child 2 to the NICU. While she could understand

the mother wishing to have the father involved in this decision and noted that the mother may be fearful of having her baby taken

away, there were pressing medical concerns for Child 2. The Medical Social Worker gave evidence that the mother discharged herself

on 2 May 2012 and visited Child 2 on 4, 5, 6, and 7 May, and the father visited on 1 and 5 May, and that there was no record of the

father’s other daughter visiting. She gave evidence that there were no family visitors between 8 and 11 May and the next visit by the

mother was on 12 May and that during this time there were no clean clothes for Child 2 and clothes had to be provided by the

hospital and Social Work Department.

20. The Court heard evidence of GP 1. GP 1 adopted her letter set out at Tab 70 of the Booklet of Reports and gave evidence of her

involvement with the mother to deal with her addiction problems over a six-month period from September 2006 to March 2007. GP 1

gave evidence that the mother did well for a time but did not seem to understand the importance of engagement or have good insight

into the level of her difficulties or how this would impact on the care of her child and that the mother discontinued attending before

concluding her programme of treatment. GP 1 recollected that the mother was somewhat uncooperative and not the most compliant

patient and abruptly stopped her treatment.

GP 1 adopted her letter at Tab 80 of the Booklet of Reports and gave evidence, agreeing with the HSE to carry out a series of random

drug screening tests on the father. She stated that the father denied any substance misuse problems presently or in the past by him

or his partner and described his alcohol intake at the upper level of acceptable limits. She told how the father refused to cooperate

with the regime of urine testing on 8 March 2012 and described him as uncooperative and oppositional. She told of his visit 10 May

2012 where he cooperated with the urine testing procedure but reported that she noticed a smell of alcohol from him. She gave

evidence that results of this test proved positive for methadone and alcohol indicating methadone was used in the past 24-48 hours.

She gave evidence of further urine testing on 1 June, 5 June, 18 June, 25 June, and 2 July which proved negative for all substances.

She gave evidence that the father refused a saliva test on 18 June and refused a hair analysis on 2 July. She gave evidence that the

father complied with a saliva test on 2 July and 12 July which proved negative for all substances. She further gave evidence that the

father complied with a hair analysis on 8 August which was positive for opiates and methadone and which suggests the father

consistently drinks to a high level. GP 1 gave evidence that the hair analysis gives a retrospective picture back for 3 months and she

is satisfied the tests and results are robust and reliable and that the random testing has now stopped.

GP 1 gave evidence that there was avoidance by the father but agreed that his cooperation with the testing regime increased over

time. It was put to GP 1 that the father smoked some heroin in March and April and took Methadone once in April, however, GP 1

formed the opinion that the hair test results relates to a 3 month period going back to mid May. She further gave evidence that the

hair test result shows a pattern of alcohol consumption over that period of time inconsistent with the history given by the father and

she would find the hair test result more reliable. She also gave evidence that methadone is a drug usually taken not to get high or as

a recreational drug but for withdrawal or maintenance and the symptoms of withdrawal would usually only appear when heroin is used

daily.

21. The Court heard evidence of the Doctor of Child & Adolescent Mental Health. She adopted the letters at Tabs 64, 68, and 75 of

the Booklet of Reports. She gave evidence of reviewing the file with regard to Child 1’s initial assessment in September 2009 and

described her meetings with the mother for diagnostic review over two meetings in June/July 2010. She told how the mother sought

progression of the referral of Chid 1 to school and how she discussed the NEPS test results with the mother, in particular Child 1’s

uneven learning profile and undetermined underlying language difficulty and the effect of his absenteeism from school on the test

results. She gave evidence that the mother declined to give consent to the expert’s clinic to obtain further information from Child 1’s

GP and missed three appointments. She gave evidence that the mother was inconsistent with the information provided but did appear

to understand what was being said to her. She gave evidence that she had never met the father as the mother had not given her

consent for contact with him and no legal recognition of guardianship status was provided to the clinic. She gave evidence that Child

1 had made positive progress while in foster care and that clarity around his care planning would allow a more conclusive

determination of the therapeutic interventions he may require.

22. The Court heard evidence of the Allocated Social Worker for Child 1 and Child 2. She adopted the Report at Tab 1, the Care Plan

for Child 2 at Tab 2, the Care Plan for Child 1 at Tab 3, and the Core Assessment Record at Tab 4 of the Booklet of Reports. She

outlined the background information of social work involvement with both families and detailed the referrals to the HSE with regard to

Child 1 in 2002, 2003, 2007, and in January 2010. She noted the details of the reported concerns of the School (admitted by all

parties), Springboard Family Support Project, the National Education and Welfare Board, and the support clinic. She gave evidence of

the inter-agency meeting of 21 June 2010, the subsequent Supervision Order made on 19 August 2010, the Child Protection

Conference on 14 December 2010, the subsequent Supervision Order of 18 February 2011, and the review by the Court on 18 March

2011. She detailed the meeting with the mother and the father on 12 May 2011 where the HSE’s on-going concerns in respect of

Child 1 were explained and they were told of the HSE’s intention to apply for an Interim Care Order. She referred to the letter signed

by the mother at this meeting and exhibited at Tab 63 of the Booklet of Reports. She noted a small improvement which was not

sustained and Child 1’s absenteeism from school continued, he was unaccompanied to school in a taxi on one occasion and concerns

remained regarding the mother’s provision of urine samples. She described the inter-agency meeting of 15 June 2011 and the

application for an Interim Care Order on 17 June 2011, which was granted on 22 June 2011. She gave evidence that a plan for

reunification was set out at this time and the mother and father were clearly advised of the HSE’s concerns regarding the parents’

substance misuse and the mother’s mental health. She outlined the areas where progress was required: the mother to provide

urinalysis and attend drug treatment programme, undergo a psychological assessment, engage with family support and the treatment;

the father to undergo an alcohol assessment; both parents to engage with family mediation. She gave evidence that there was not

sufficient progress by the mother or father or jointly.

The Allocated Social Worker went on to give evidence of how the mother informed her of her pregnancy with Child 2 on 27 January

2012 and her concerns as Child 1 remained in care and for the mother’s continued drug use and engagement with HSE and that the

mother was not yet booked in with a maternity hospital. She referred to the letter of the 23 February 2012 written to the parents and

exhibited at Tab 69 of the Booklet of Reports outlining the on-going HSE concerns with respect to Child 1 and the as yet unborn Child

2. The Allocated Social Worker went on to give evidence that she completed the Core Assessment at Tab 4 of the Booklet of Reports of

March 2012 updated this in August 2012. She said she would rule out reunification at this time as Child 1’s needs were neglected, the

lack of progress by the parents and the need to forward plan for Child 1. She would need to see a prolonged period of stability over

2-3 years given the backdrop of the parents’ instability. She noted the HSE’s statutory obligation to carry out Child in Care Reviews

that would consider the viability of reunification. She gave evidence that the same principle stands for Child 2 and observed that Child

2 has very different care needs and that a huge parenting capacity piece would have to be carried out. She gave evidence that the

HSE will always consider the viability of reunification.

The Allocated Social Worker gave evidence that Child 1’s current foster placement is proposed to be his long-term placement but the

matching process has not yet started due to resourcing issues. She also gave evidence that while there were problems with Child 2’s

placement initially, her current private foster placement is proposed to be her long-term placement but the matching process will not

begin until Child 2 has been six months in care. She would recommend funding for the placement long-term.

The Allocated Social Worker gave evidence that the mother’s access to Child 2 is currently suspended as access is not in Child 2’s

best interests over concerns about the mother not meeting Child 2’s needs, not being ‘present’, being dangerous at points, and that

access was distressing for Child 2. She did note positive access in the past and said access would be reviewed and monitored. The

father currently has access with Child 2 which is also under review. The mother’s access to Child 1 is increasingly strained as a result

of her current difficulties and at this time cannot see an increase in access. The father’s access with Child 1 is going well and is

positive. If the conditions outlined by Forensic Psychologist 1 are met, supervision may be relaxed or done away with.

The Allocated Social Worker gave evidence that the reasons for a Care Order have been set out clearly to the parents. She noted

some level of increased engagement by the father but this is quite late in the day, and told of her concerns regarding the father’s hair

test results, Child 1 in care for one year and three months and needs certainty and that Child 1 suffered constant neglect prior to

coming into care and that a lot of work would need to be done before a reunification plan could be implemented. She noted Child 2

also needs consistency.

The Allocated Social Worker gave evidence of her involvement with the family between September and November 2012. She gave

evidence of her efforts to contact the mother to discuss what the mother would need to do to resume access with Child 2 and that

contact from the mother was minimal. She gave evidence that the mother had missed five weeks access with Child 1. She gave

evidence that the mother had said on one occasion she had resumed living with the father but that the mother had later retracted

this and the father had denied this when it was put to him. She gave evidence of a level of contact between the parents and her

concerns that they may have resumed a relationship. She gave evidence of her suspicion that the mother is pregnant again and that

she had raised this question with her and she did not answer directly. She gave evidence that she is very concerned about the

mother at this time. She gave evidence that the father’s access with both Child 1 and Child 2 is progressing well. She gave evidence

that the father has agreed to another hair strand test. She gave evidence claiming that there are no significant changes that would

cause her to change the recommendations she gave to the Court. She recommended Care Orders until age 18 for both Child 1 and

Child 2 with access to be established at the discretion of the HSE.

23. I have heard the evidence of Forensic Psychologist 2 who confirmed and adopted her report at Tab 70 of the Booklet of Evidence.

She described her meeting with the mother in July 2012 which the mother attended for 1 hour 15 minutes and discussed the triggers

for her addiction and her experiences around Child 1’s birth and childhood and reported that she was uncomfortable and reluctant to

discuss her past experiences or her current relationship with Child 1. She reported that the mother did not discuss Child 2. She gave

evidence that she explained the reason for the assessment to the mother that she appeared to understand. She reported how the

mother was offered further appointments and personality tests to be completed at home, that the mother did not attend two

appointments and completed only part of the personality test; therefore, it was not possible to test the mother’s capacity to parent

and she recommended the children remain in care for the foreseeable future as the mother was reluctant to address her addiction

difficulties with any form of counselling and it is important that the mother develop an awareness of her triggers to develop coping

strategies.

24. I have heard the evidence of the Access Worker who confirmed and adopted her reports at Tabs 44, 52, and 60 and a further

report dated 3 September 2012. She described how she has mostly supervised access sessions with the mother and the father. She

gave evidence that when the mother was calm, her interactions with Child 2 were appropriate and the mother appeared relatively

competent in her care of Child 2. However, when the mother was not calm, her interactions with Child 2 were not appropriate, the

mother attended to her own needs rather than Child 2’s needs, and that she would not have considered the mother’s interaction with

Child 2 safe and that Child 2 did not appear to be comfortable. She did not think that the mother would deliberately hurt Child 2. She

gave evidence that on occasion, the mother had difficulty parting with Child 2. She gave evidence that she had offered to meet with

the mother subsequent to the current suspension of access to Child 2, which the mother has refused. She gave evidence of two

access sessions that she supervised between the mother and Child 1 in which the mother found it difficult to deal with Child 1.

The Access Worker gave evidence of supervising the father’s access with Child 2, which she described as overall very appropriate and

comfortable. She noted that at times the session does not always last for a full hour and comes to a natural end. She also gave

evidence of one session she had supervised between the father and Child 1 and stated that the father appears to be very good with

Child 1 and does not require any input from the supervisor. She also gave evidence of an access visit between all of the family where

she reported that the father and the mother did not consult with each other.

25. The mother only attended Court on the first day of this hearing and has not offered her evidence to the Court. The only evidence

on the mother’s behalf was from a Psychologist who gave evidence of attachment theory, the importance of access between children

in foster care and their biological parents, and general therapies that might be given to parents with difficulties. The Psychologist had

not met with the mother, Child 1, or Child 2 and therefore his evidence to the Court was limited to generalities.

26. I have heard evidence from the father who described his history, and his children from his earlier marriage, and admitted problems

with one of his older daughter’s attendance at school. He gave evidence of how he met the mother in 1999, when she was 17 and he

was 41. He gave evidence of his history of drug and alcohol use over the last 30 years including his drug use with the mother. He

gave evidence of smoking heroin sporadically and going on a methadone programme for approximately one and a half years from 2008.

He gave evidence that he had a stroke in 2010 and that he smoked heroin a couple of times in 2012 just before Child 2 was born and

using methadone one time after the mother moved out. He admitted to drinking heavily at that time and admitted lying to Forensic

Psychologist 1 and Social Workers about his drug use. He also gave evidence of the mother’s history of drug use, which he states

began before their relationship. He gave evidence that the mother was on methadone while pregnant with Child 1.

He gave evidence that the mother lived with him until a few months after Child 1 was born when she moved back in with her mother.

He gave evidence that when Child 1 was about two, he applied for an access order in Court which, in the main, the mother complied

with and that she attended for the access visits. He denied ever being violent to the mother, but admitted two instances of criminal

damage to her car and property and denied that Child 1 ever witnessed violence between him and the mother. He gave evidence of

only attending one meeting at the School and did not see any need to be more involved as the mother said all was going well with

Child 1 and he always found the mother to be a very good mother. He gave evidence that Child 1’s behaviour in school was a concern

but that he put this down to Child 1’s ADHD and that he was aware of the school’s issues about Child 1’s attendance and punctuality

but that the mother did not involve him in this; he was not asked to do anything by the school and he assumed all was ok. He gave

evidence that sometimes he would see Child 1 every day. He gave evidence that he was not aware of Child 1’s referral to the

treatment clinic or the first supervision order sought by the HSE. He gave evidence of being contacted by the HSE after the second

supervision order and at that stage he became as involved as he possibly could and applied to Court and was made a guardian of

Child 1. He gave evidence that at this time the mother appeared to have a breakdown and Child 1 was living between the mother and

Child 1’s grandmother but Child 1 did spend some nights and a couple of weeks staying with him at this time. He gave evidence that

neither he nor the mother was ever neglectful of Child 1 and that he had no concerns about the mother’s care of Child 1 until

September 2010. He gave evidence that the mother did not move back in with him until July 2011, which lasted until April 2012. He

admitted covering for the mother’s drug use during this time. He gave evidence that he visited Child 2 in hospital after her birth on

more occasions than recorded, but admitted that there might have been one day when Child 2 did not have any clothes in the

hospital.

The father gave evidence that he was initially not open to drug testing and that he was hard to deal with at times but that his

relationship with Social Workers has improved, he has cooperated with drug testing and has moderated his drinking to approximately

18 pints each week. He gave evidence that he will engage in further drug testing and would attend drug counselling but that he does

not think he needs it and has not sourced any counselling. The father gave evidence that he has had some contact with the mother;

he will always have a relationship with her but that she does not live with him and he believes she is living with her mother. He denied

that the mother is pregnant or that he is having sexual relations with the mother since Child 2 was born. He gave evidence that he

could resist any pressure the mother might put on him and did not agree that he would be susceptible to a relapse if he comes under

pressure.

The father gave evidence that Child 1 is doing well in care but he feels Child 1 would be better off living with him at home. He

accepted there was neglect of Child 1 which was detrimental to Child 1’s welfare and that Child 1 is doing better since coming into

care and attributed his improvement as much to his school as his foster family. He would like access to both children to be

unsupervised. He admitted he is not looking to have Child 2 returned to his care at present as he could not look after a baby and he

hopes that in a year Child 2 could return to the mother and if the mother cannot then Child 2 should return to his care. He gave

evidence that the HSE has not spoken to him about a parenting programme and that he would attend one if offered.

27. I have heard the evidence of the GAL who confirmed and adopted her report. She gave evidence of social work concerns about

Child 1 dating back to his birth and early life. She gave evidence of the concerns of Child 1’s school particularly his attendance and

presentation, inadequate clothing and food, poor hygiene, his emotional inhibition, and difficult behaviour including violence to other

children including violence to girls over a three and half year period and Child 1’s referral to the treatment clinic. She expressed her

concerns that the father states he had frequent contact with Child 1 in this period and failed to notice Child 1’s difficulties. She gave

evidence that when the father began his relationship with the mother she would have considered the mother to be a vulnerable young

person. She gave evidence of how Child 1 described conditions when he was living at home with the mother, including waking himself

up for school, frequently eating take-away meals, and frequently hearing his parents fighting.

The GAL gave evidence that Child 1’s best wish is to return to live with the mother and the father and his maternal grandmother all

living together, in a house with a garden for football, the mother to help him with homework and to cook his dinner and wash his

clothes, to have a bed time and to have rules and to move from Child 1’s current school. He has not expressed a wish to live with the

father alone. He has questioned why the father and the mother do not come for access together. He has stated that if he is not to

live with the mother, he would like to stay with his foster-family. She gave evidence that Child 1 likes to see the mother for access

but she has observed him to be quite angry with the mother and tests her capacity to set boundaries. She gave evidence that Child 1

enjoys his access time with the father when they are doing activities but struggles otherwise. She gave evidence that Child 1 does

not appear to have any difficulties with access being supervised.

The GAL gave evidence that Child 1 has made great progress in care, with no more behavioural difficulties, improved academically,

increased confidence, has better interaction with peers, and may be reintegrated into mainstream school. She described him as

thriving in his placement and that it would be regrettable for Child 1 to be moved and that his placement should be long-term

approved. During cross-examination, it emerged that the HSE received a complaint about Child 1’s foster family. The GAL has asked

that she be told the date the complaint was received, when it will be investigated and the results of the investigation. She further

required that a safety plan be put in place for Child 1 and a contingency plan should he be required to be moved. She gave evidence

that it is in the best interests of Child 1 to remain in care of the HSE under a Care Order.

The GAL gave evidence that Child 2 suffered ante-natal and post-natal disadvantage, noting in particular the mother’s drug use

during pregnancy and sudden cessation prior to birth and lack of ante-natal care, Child 2 being born with drug withdrawal symptoms,

and being unattended in hospital for four days. She also gave evidence that no placement was identified for Child 2 which resulted in

the infant staying three extra days in hospital, her discharge to a short-term placement and movement to another placement not

suited to her particular needs before being placed in her current private foster placement where Child 2’s primary attachment is

forming with her foster-mother. The GAL sought confirmation that this placement will continue to be available to Child 2 for as long as

she will need to be placed there. She recommended a Care Order for Child 2 for the full duration.

The GAL gave evidence that access between the mother and Child 2 was initially positive but concerns arose around the mother’s

presentation and interaction with Child 2 and Child 2’s safety during access in August 2012. She recommended that access between

the mother and Child 2 be at the discretion of the HSE subject to section 37 of the 1991 Act and that access must be safe for Child

2. She gave evidence that she has been unable to contact the mother and is concerned about her at present as indications are that

her mental health is poor and that this makes it impossible to work with the mother to improve access. She did not form the opinion

that the mother could care for either child at present.

The GAL gave evidence of her concerns around the father: that he has been consistently inconsistent about his alcohol and drug use,

his motivation to share truthful information and that there are difficulties in getting a clear picture of his relationship with the mother.

She expressed concerns about the father’s ability to report truthfully and his capacity to address his alcohol and drug use in the

future as he has only recently appeared to address drug and alcohol use that goes back over 30 years. She gave evidence that a

parenting course for the father would be beneficial.

Decision

28. Having heard the evidence and read the reports in the Booklet of Evidence, I am satisfied the proposed findings of fact as set out

by the applicant have all been proven.

29. Having heard the evidence set out above, read the reports in the Booklet of Evidence, and heard the submissions made by the

parties, I am satisfied that in respect of the infant Child 1 the threshold criteria under section 18 (1)(a), (b), and (c) of the 1991 Act

are met and that the infant Child 1’s health, development, and welfare would suffer if a Care Order were not granted. The duration of

the Care Order shall be to 15 August 2020. I am satisfied to make the Care Order based on:

(i) The history of constant neglect of care of Child 1 by his parents including absenteeism and lateness to school,

poor personal hygiene, inadequate food, and resulting behaviour problems;

(ii) The history of instability and drugs and alcohol misuse by the parents;

(iii) The history of domestic violence between the parents;

(iv) The difficulties in engaging the mother and, until recently, the father with support services;

(v) The parents’ lack of insight into Child 1’s needs or their own difficulties;

(vi) The mother’s lack of capacity and ability to parent Child 1;

(vii) The parents’ high risk of relapse into drug/alcohol abuse.

30. Having heard the evidence set out above, read the reports in the Booklet of Evidence, and heard the submissions made by the

parties, I am satisfied that in respect of the infant Child 2 the threshold criteria under section 18 (1)(a), (b), and (c) of the 1991 Act

are met and that the infant Child 2’s health, development, and welfare would suffer if a Care Order was not granted. The duration of

the Care Order shall be to 30 April 2030. I make the Care Order for the following reasons:

(i) The neglect of care of Child 2 by her parents before birth and immediately after birth;

(ii) The history of instability and drugs and alcohol misuse by Child 2’s parents and particularly the mother’s drug use

while pregnant with Child 2 and her sudden cessation of drug use immediately prior to Child 2’s birth;

(iii) The history of domestic violence between the parents;

(iv) The difficulties in engaging the mother and, until recently, the father with support services;

(v) The parents’ lack of insight into Child 2’s needs or their own difficulties;

(vi) The mother’s lack of capacity and ability to parent Child 2;

(vii) The parents’ high risk of relapse into drug/alcohol abuse.

31. I am satisfied that making this order is proportionate in this case as despite the multiple supports offered to the mother, her

engagement with services has been limited or refused, and these problems continue to persist and have recently deteriorated to such

extent that the mother has not shown the ability or commitment to sustain consistent care and parenting to either child and there is

no indication this is likely to change in the foreseeable future. I note that the father has recently begun to engage positively with the

social work department and has stated that he will engage with counselling for his drug misuse and states he has moderated his

alcohol consumption. The father has also recently engaged consistently with access to both children, which is a very positive

experience for the children. However, the father has not shown the ability to sustain consistent care and parenting to either child and

there is no indication this is likely to change in the foreseeable future. While I have no doubt that the mother and the father love their

children very much, they cannot offer either child the stability or predictability they require and it is in each child’s best interests to

remain in the care of their current respective foster-carers. The HSE offered to continue to assist and direct the mother and the

father to necessary supports and that reunification will be considered at each child’s annual care review.

32. With regard to the mother’s application under section 37 for access, having heard the evidence set out above I make the

following Order: access between the mother and the children should be at the discretion of the HSE pursuant to section 37 of the

1991 Act, having considered:

(i) The mother’s lack of engagement with social work services

(ii) The concerns expressed regarding the mother’s mental health

(iii) The concerns expressed regarding the mother’s conduct at recent access visits.

33. With regard to the father’s application under section 37 for access, having heard the evidence set out above I make the following

Order: access between the father and the children should be at the discretion of the HSE pursuant to section 37 of the 1991 Act. In

deciding access between the father and each of the children, consideration should be given to his recent engagement with the HSE,

the recommendations of Forensic Psychologist 1, and the positive reports of his access with both children.

34. With regard to the father’s application pursuant to section 6A of the Guardianship of Infants Acts 1964-97 for guardianship of the

infant Child 2 and having regard to it being in the best interests of Child 2 to maintain personal relations and personal contact with her

father, I order the father to act as guardian of Child 2 jointly with the mother.

35. With regard to the father’s application pursuant to section 11(4) of the Guardianship of Infants Acts 1964-97 for sole custody of

both children, this application is now moot and therefore I direct this application be struck out with no order made.

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

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

(i) a Social Worker/Fostering Link Worker becomes unallocated to either Child 1 or to Child 2 for a period of 4 weeks;

(ii) a planned or unplanned change of current foster placement of either child;

(iii) the annual Child in Care Review for either child is not carried out for any reason;

(iv) After Care Review for Child 1 on his 17th birthday [date given] to assess his After Care Service needs;

(v) After Care Review for Child 2 on her 17th birthday [date given] to assess her After Care Service needs.

37. With respect to the future care of the infant Child 1:

(i) I reserve approval of the foster placement suggested and shall re-enter this matter for further consideration on

20 February 2013;

(ii) I direct the date the complaint was received by the HSE regarding Child 1’s foster placement and details of when

an investigation will be completed to be provided to the father within 2 weeks;

(iii) I direct the date the complaint was received by the HSE regarding Child 1’s foster placement, the broad nature

of the complaint and a time frame of when an investigation will be completed is to be provided to the GAL within 2

weeks. I further direct as a result of this complaint an assessment of risk and a safety plan be immediately put in

place for Child 1 and a contingency/parallel plan be prepared should he be required to be moved to an alternative

placement in the event the complaint against his foster carers is upheld.

(iv) This matter is to be re-entered before the Court on 20 November 2015 for review of progress in care.

38. With respect to the future care of the infant Child 2:

(i) I approve the foster placement suggested and note the GAL’s agreement with this and shall re-enter this matter

for final approval on 20 February 2013 when the matching process should be completed;

(ii) This matter is to be re-entered before the Court on 20 November 2015 for review of progress in care.

39. The GAL is to remain until 20 February 2012 and is to be reappointed, if discharged earlier, six weeks before the review of

progress of both children on 20 November 2015.

40. I make the following recommendations:

(i) The mother is to engage with a drug treatment programme, psychological assessment and any therapies

recommended.

(ii) The father is to engage with addiction counselling and undertake a parenting course.

(iii) The HSE to assist the parents with these recommendations.