District Court grants Care Order for children due to parental drug addiction and inability to care.

[2012] IEDC 26

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE

APPLICANT

-AND-

AR & CB

RESPONDENTS

CHILD CARE ACT 1991 — SECTION 18

IN THE MATTER OF CHILD 1 AND CHILD 2

14 December 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, aged 12 years, and Child 2, aged 8 years. Both Child 1 and Child 2 were currently in the care of the Health Service

Executive (HSE). Both children were admitted to the care of the HSE pursuant to an application for an Interim Care Order made on 16

September 2011 and which has been extended by the Court on sixteen occasions.

2. I am satisfied that the mother, who is the first named respondent, and the father, who is the second named respondent, have

been properly served with notice of these proceedings.

3. I am satisfied that the [District given] has jurisdiction to hear this application.

4. The HSE was represented in these proceedings by their solicitor.

5. The mother was represented in these proceedings by her solicitor.

6. The father was represented in these proceedings by his solicitor.

7. The views and interests of both children were represented in these proceedings by their Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”) who instructed

his solicitor to act in these proceedings. The GAL indicated to the Court his support for a Care Order in respect of the children and

recommended such Order for the full duration.

8. On the day of hearing, both parents indicated to the Court through their legal representatives their consent to the making of a

Care Order in respect of each child to age 18 and admitted the facts as set out in the findings of fact document submitted to the

Court by the Applicant.

9. I have heard the evidence of the doctor who confirmed and swore the contents of his report for Court. He has treated both

parents for their drug addictions. He gave evidence that he has not seen the mother for some months as she is incarcerated in Prison

and noted that she is an intelligent woman who has potential to address her addiction. He gave evidence that the father has made

significant progress with his addiction over the last three months and now seems to be resolving his issues around his father’s death,

which increased his drug problem. He gave evidence that the father has made a breakthrough and is doing some deep counselling with

his drug counsellor and if this is maintained he would be optimistic for the father for the next year. He gave evidence that both

parents depend on the children’s maternal grandmother a great deal. He gave evidence that for the mother to successfully detox, she

should never stop seeing a drug counsellor and will require a proper follow up programme to help her remain drug free.

10. I have heard the evidence of the Allocated Social Worker, who confirmed and swore the contents of her various reports in the

Book of Evidence. In her evidence, she described the children and their recent placement move close to their family and extended

family where she described the children as settling in well and advised the long-term matching process will happen in the very near

future. She gave evidence to the Court of the children’s views with Child 1 stating he would prefer to be in the care of his father, or

his maternal grandmother and Child 2 stating that she would prefer to be with her maternal grandmother. She gave evidence of the

access schedule agreed with the father and the extended family who are taking the children for a respite break over the Christmas

period with an appropriate safety plan in place. She agreed that access between the children and their father is very important to the

children. She gave evidence that there has been a gap in contact with their mother until 25 November 2012 when access went well,

but that it will need more time to rebuild bonds. She gave evidence that the mother has good insight to the children and if access

visits continue to go well an access schedule will be implemented.

11. I have heard the evidence of the Guardian ad Litem, who swore the contents of his report for court. He gave evidence that both

parents of the children were significantly misusing drugs when the children came into care and that their paternal grandfather and

maternal grandmother had become significant primary carers for the children. He gave evidence that the children’s relationship with

their maternal grandmother is very strong and that the father also has a good relationship with the children’s maternal grandmother.

He described both children and gave evidence of his support for care orders for the children. He recommended referrals to

psychotherapy for both children, sustained detox supports for the mother on her release and supports contact between the children

and the father and the extended family and contact with the mother as long as she is stable. He also recommended a review in one

year.

Decision

12. Having heard the evidence set out above, and having considered the findings of fact submitted by the HSE and admitted by the

parents to be proven, and taking into account the views, interests and wishes of both children (indirectly expressed to the Court

through the GAL), I am satisfied that in respect of Child 1 and Child 2 that the threshold criteria under section 18 (1)(a), (b), and (c)

of the 1991 Act are met and that their health, development, and welfare would suffer if a Care Order was not granted. The duration

of the Care Order in respect of Child 1 shall be until Child 1’s 18th birthday on [date given]. The duration of the Care Order in respect

of Child 2 shall be to Child 2’s 18th birthday on [date given]. My reasons for making these orders for this duration are as follows:

(i) the parents’ long standing addiction difficulties;

(ii) the mother’s history of criminal convictions;

(iii) the mother’s difficulties with sustaining stable accommodation;

(iv) the mother’s lack of contact with the children; and

(v) the parents’ admission that they cannot presently care for the children.

13. I am satisfied this decision is proportionate for the following reasons:

(i) the access and contact that has been facilitated and arranged between the parents and the children and the

supports that that have been provided to the children; and

(ii) the counselling and drug treatment programmes that have been provided to the parents.

14. I approve the Care Plans submitted to the Court and note the GAL’s approval.

15. Having heard the evidence set out above, I direct that access between the parents and the children be at the discretion of the

HSE pursuant to section 37 of the 1991 Act having considered the importance of contact with their parents and their extended family

for the children.

16. I excuse the GAL with costs to be paid by the HSE and taxed in default of agreement.

17. Under section 47 of the 1991 Act, I direct that the case is to be re-entered before the Court by the HSE and on notice to the

GAL in the event that:

(i) a Social Worker/Fostering Link Worker becomes unallocated to either child for a period of six weeks;

(ii) any planned or unplanned change of current foster placement of either/both children;

(iii) the Annual Child in Care Review for either children is not carried out for any reason.

If the GAL in this case is no longer available, the HSE is to bring an application to the Court to have a GAL appointed pursuant to

section 23 of the 1991 Act

18. Under section 47 of the 1991 Act, I direct that a Fostering Link Worker be allocated to the children and this matter entered for

mention before this Court on 7 February 2013 for confirmation of this. I further direct long-term psycho-therapy supports be identified

and provided to both children.

19. Having heard the evidence and recommendations of the GAL, I further recommend that Family Support be offered to the children’s

maternal grandmother.

20. After Care Review for Child 1 on his 16th birthday [date given] to assess his After Care Service needs.

21. After Care Review for Child 2 on her 16th birthday [date given] to assess her After Care Service needs.