District Court grants full Care Order under Child Care Act 1991 s.18 on parental consent regarding alcohol dependence.

[2012] IEDC 6

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE

APPLICANT

-AND-

SG & JB

RESPONDENTS

CHILD CARE ACT, 1991— SECTION 18

IN THE MATTER OF A CHILD

16 March 2012

Disposal on Consent

This is an application for a Care Order under section 18 of the Child Care Act, 1991 in respect of a Child, aged ten.

1. The Child’s mother is the first named respondent and the Child’s father is the second named respondent. The parents are not

married to one another and do not reside together as a couple.

2. The mother is represented by solicitor and counsel within these proceedings. His instructions are that the mother concedes that

the threshold criteria of section 18 are met in the case and that a full Care Order until the Child reaches 18 years of age is agreed to

provided that there is a review hearing in September 2012 when his client will have completed her residential alcohol treatment

placement.

3. The father is not represented in the proceedings and did not come to Court — although he is aware of the proceedings and was

properly served as evidenced by the Service Declarations on file and as per the evidence of the Social Worker.

4. The HSE is represented by a solicitor who agrees to the requirement of the review in September;

5. The child is represented in the proceedings by her Guardian ad Litem (GAL). The GAL supports the HSE application for a full Care

Order but expresses concerns in her GAL Report (largely focussing on the foster placement permanency). This foster placement is a

private placement, which requires an application to be made by the HSE for funding grants to support the placement every three

months.

6. The HSE allegations of neglect and emotional abuse of the child are conceded.

7. A psychological evaluation of the mother indicates that she does not suffer from a learning difficulty. However she is resistant to

psychological treatment and support. In the psychologist’s professional opinion, this resistance precludes any prospect of positive

change in parenting. The psychologist noted further that without effective support and treatment, denial would persist in respect of

the mother’s alcohol dependence.

8. It is submitted by the mother’s representatives that she has now accessed an alcohol treatment programme in February of this

year. The mother does not accept the contents of the psychologist’s report.

9. The Social Worker gave evidence as per her reports at 1 March 2012, as per Tab A 12 of the Booklet of Proceedings, and as per

her report of 8 December 2011. In her professional opinion as outlined in her report, the Child’s health, development, and welfare

require the making of a full Care Order.

10. The GAL, gave evidence of the veracity of her report to Court on 5 March 2012. She endeavoured to procure the wishes and

feelings of the Child herself in respect of the matter. The child has not wanted to express a very direct view (page 26 GAL Report)

but she has expressed that she is very happy with her current placement. She is happy in all aspects of her life and looking forward

to going to school. She discusses worrying things with her foster carer and never experienced the potential for such discussions with

her mother. She suffered from insecure attachment when she came into care and was ambivalent in her attachment due to her

loyalty to her mother and uncertainty that she would be returned to her care. This attachment disorder was manifest in many ways

such as smiling inappropriately when her mother was angry with her etc. Now, however, she is clearly developing a secure attachment

with her foster mother and this is obvious to her foster carer and others in her life. She says she is very excited about staying with

her current foster carer until she is 18 years old. Because her mother was more appropriate on the last access visit, she expressed

the desire to see her mother twice per week — she previously saw her once per week. The Psychologist has advised that security in

the placement is pivotal for the psychological welfare of this child. Her emotional security depends on her continuity of care; she has

been with her current foster carer since she came into HSE care and this stability has been the deciding factor in her attachment

remediation.

Section 18 Threshold Criteria

11. Having read the reports and booklets furnished, the GAL report, and the evidence of Social Worker 1 and the GAL, and having

listened to all submissions I am satisfied that the threshold criteria of section 18(1)(a), (b), and (c) are met in this case and I am

satisfied that a full Care Order is a proportionate response to the triggering of the threshold criteria in this case. The Care Order in

respect of the Child should continue until she is 18 years on the [date given] with a Court Review on 24 September 2012 by consent

of all parties.

12. Access to be at the discretion of the HSE and within the parameters of section 37 of the Child Care Act 1991. Frequency of

access is to be within the parameters agreed between the parties and must meet the needs the Child and take into account her

expressed views. The Access Application of mother is to be adjourned to 24 September 2012.

13. The current Care plan meets needs of the Child according to GAL but may need to be reviewed in September.

Section 47 Directions

14. The Court makes the following directions pursuant to section 47:

1. That the Placement Committee considers the outcome of the fostering assessment process to complete the

matching process so that the current foster carer may be designated as the long-term foster carer and that

process should be completed before September 2012.

2. That the case is to be re-entered on six week’s notice to GAL and mother if a change of placement (motivated

by funding issue) is contemplated and the matter is to be re-entered before the Court forthwith.

3. That the Court review the case on consent on 24 September 2012 to be assured as to the longevity of the

current placement and that access be adjourned to that date also in the event that the mother is dissatisfied with

arrangements agreed. Up to date Care Plan to be provided at that time also.

4. That the GAL is discharged with usual order for costs and reappoint GAL on Monday 27 August 2012 provided

that there is no prior re-entry for No. 2 above

5. That the Case is also to be Re-Entered in the event that the case becomes unallocated for a period of four

weeks and GAL reappointed.

6. That the HSE provides appropriate therapeutic interventions for the mother to cope with grief of the long Care

Order and enable her to support the foster placement and make access meaningful which is for the ultimate benefit

of the Child.