District Court grants Care Order under Child Care Act 1991 s.18 for abused child.

[2013] IEDC 11

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE

APPLICANT

-AND-

AR & PR

RESPONDENTS

CHILD CARE ACT, 1991— SECTION 18

IN THE MATTER OF CHILD 8

7 May 2013

Background History Overview

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 8, who is fifteen years old. Child 8 is the youngest child of the family of eight and she was admitted to the care of

the Health Service Executive (HSE) on 7 July 2012 following the exercise of section 12 of the Child Care Act 1991 on 9 July 2012 by

An Garda Síochána. The circumstances surrounding the exercise of this section by An Garda Síochána are unusual, as the young

person herself walked into the Garda Station and confided to the Garda on duty in the public office that she had been physically,

emotionally and sexually abused by her father. An Emergency Care Order was made by the Court on 9 July 2012 and has been

extended on nine occasions to the date of hearing, on the consent of each of her parents.

2. Child 8’s mother is legally represented in the proceedings and present in Court. Her father has declined to participate in the

proceedings, though he consented in writing to various extensions of the Interim Care Order granted in excess of an eight day period.

3. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing of the proceedings has been properly served.

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

5. The views and interests of Child 8 were represented in these proceedings by her Guardian Ad Litem. The Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”)

indicated to the Court her support for a Care Order in respect of the child for a period of one year. However, the GAL had certain

reservations regarding the Care Plan and the uncertainty around some aspects of the current placement for Child 8.

6. On the day of hearing, the legal team for the mother indicated to the Court through their legal representatives her consent to the

making of a Care Order in respect of Child 8 for a period of one year, although the Finding of Facts document submitted by the HSE

was not admitted by the mother.

7. I have heard the evidence of the Garda who was on duty in the public office in the Garda Station on Saturday 7 July 2012. He took

Child 8’s statement and delivered her into the care of the HSE and she was brought to the Sexual Assault and Trauma Unit in the

Hospital. The following day, her and four of her sisters attended at the Garda Station and corroborated her account of physical,

emotional, and sexual abuse of their sister and of them over the years. A further section 12 procedure was executed by the same

Garda in respect of the minor sibling, Child 7. The older siblings also stated that they had been threatened and intimidated by their

father in an effort to induce them to remain silent. The father has been charged in respect of numerous counts of rape and sexual

assault and a charge of threatening to kill or cause serious harm to Child 8 and her minor sibling. These charges are set down for trial

in the Circuit Criminal Court on [date given].

8. I have heard the evidence of the Allocated Social Worker who was allocated to the case in September of 2012. She swore that the

content of the Report contained in the Booklet of Pleadings at tab 7 of the Booklet of Pleadings was true and accurate to the best of

her knowledge, information, and belief. She noted from the files that the family was known to the HSE since February 2000. The initial

disclosure appears to have been from one of the older children who complained to the Public Health Nurse that his uncle saw his

father beating one of his younger brothers. The complaint was investigated — the parents denied the allegation and the children were

interviewed. In January 2003, the mother and some of her daughters were recorded as making complaints of physical and sexual

abuse by the father. A domestic violence remedy was sought by the mother but subsequently the complaints of physical and sexual

abuse were retracted by the children. While the HSE kept the file open and transferred the file to the Team Leader for allocation,

nothing further appears to have been actioned by the HSE. In July 2003, Child 3 presented to a Garda Station alleging physical and

sexual abuse. The complaint was investigated by An Garda Síochána and the father denied the allegations. In May 2004, Child 5

disclosed in school that she was being physically and sexually abused by her father and that her mother was the victim of domestic

violence. When this complaint was investigated even though the father was serving a prison sentence for an unrelated matter, the

family was not united in corroborating the level of abuse. Two of the children were received into voluntary care. The allegations of

CSA were investigated by the Care Unit and confirmed. In 2005, the Social Work Department took the position that should the father

be released from prison and return home, it would not be a safe place for the younger children. However, in 2006 when this happened

a Supervision Order was secured in respect of the younger children. A decision was taken that because the mother would remain

home with the children, it was a sufficient protective factor to address the risk. This professional decision is hard to understand

notwithstanding that the file indicates that no placements were available at the time. The Risk assessment carried out by the

Granada Institute did not have the benefit of receiving the Report which affirmed CSA in respect of Child 4, as Child 4 declined to

make it available to them. The Risk assessment by the Granada Institute does not appear to have included any psychometric

evaluation, such as Static 99 or Able, but there appears to have been a clinical assessment concluding that the father was of low

risk. The HSE were therefore satisfied that a Supervision Order and anger management would safeguard the family. The two children

in voluntary care returned to the care of the family and the Supervision Order remained in place until July 2007. The case remained

open but was not active until Child 8 attended the Garda Station last year.

9. The Allocated Social Worker indicated that the mother was now working with the HSE and supporting her daughter in the

placement. Child 8 is not coping well in care. She is engaging in high-risk behaviours and self-harm. She is in therapy and will require

remain in therapy for a very considerable amount of time.

10. I have heard the evidence of the Principal Social Worker, who endeavoured to explain to the Court the difficulties being

encountered with the current placement which is a private residential unit. The unit is being investigated at a National Level in light of

an anonymous complaint received. A professionals meeting is due to be held to iron out some of the issues surrounding support

services for the staff working there and the tuition that will be available for Child 8. The Principal Social Worker could shed no further

light on the circumstances surrounding the HSE professional decisions taken in 2006 in light of the Residential Unit Report.

11. I have heard the evidence of the Psychologist, who viewed the Garda Specialist Interview undertaken in respect of the allegations

of sexual abuse. She was satisfied that this was good practice as it prevented the young person being re-traumatised. She was

satisfied that the account was a credible one and their role has been to support Child 8 with support services.

12. I have heard the evidence of the GAL. She has indicated that Child 8 wishes to limit the Order in this case to one year as she is

hopeful that if her father receives a sentence of imprisonment, it may be possible for her to return home and that would offer her

greater comfort than a care order until she was eighteen. She is a highly vulnerable young woman who will need therapeutic support

for many years into the future. The Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, whose report was highlighted at tab 10 of the Booklet furnished

to Court, sees Child 8 on an emergency basis and also reviews her case regularly and he was concerned that the Care Plan should

reflect this more accurately than the Plan submitted to Court. He reviews her therapy under the Psychologist (whose report is

outlined at tabs 8 and 9 of the Booklet furnished to Court). Her psychotherapy is provided weekly. She was supportive of the

Residential Unit but noted that the unit is privately run and exigencies arising may detract from ensuring a consistent behavioural

support methodology with long-term mature staff. She acknowledged that Child 8’s behaviours are very difficult to manage and that

the staff will need very consistent and specialist support to help them in that task. If a foster placement is identified to match Child

8’s care needs, then the step down from the Residential Unit will have to be very carefully managed and graduated to Child 8’s very

special needs. Child 8 has made reference to the throughput of staff in the unit and wishes the GAL to remain in place for her. She

was concerned that a concerted effort needed to be made in terms of planning for defined goals to be achieved and regular reviews.

The composition, personalities, and individual needs of other young person’s in the unit can have a very significant effect on Child 8,

although she noted that this was difficult for the HSE to manage given that the unit is privately funded. She acknowledged the

support the Residential Unit has given to Child 8 by not calling in the Gardai when she damaged property or assaulted staff. In her

view, this showed a very good level of commitment by the Residential Unit to Child 8.

Section 18 Threshold

13. Having heard the evidence set out above and having considered the findings of fact submitted by the HSE, I am satisfied that

Child 8 has been emotionally, physically and sexually abused and that the threshold criteria under section 18(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the

1991 Act are met and that Child 8’s health, development, and welfare would suffer if a Care Order was not granted.

14. I have also taken into account the views, interests and wishes of Child 8 as indirectly expressed to the Court through the GAL

and I am satisfied that duration of the Care Order shall be for a period of one year until [date given]. My reason for making the order

for this duration is as follows: it accords to the wishes of Child 8 and these wishes are supported by her GAL and the Social Work

Department.

15. The Care Order can be extended by the Court on its own motion or on the application of any person and I propose to list this

case one month before the expiry of the Care Order to consider whether an extension of the Care Order is warranted in the best

interests of Child 8. I am satisfied this decision is proportionate

16. I cannot approve the Care Plan in its current format and note the GAL’s similar concerns regarding the current format of the HSE’s

Care Plan.

Section 37 Access

17. Having heard the evidence set out above, I direct that access between Child 8 and her family be at the discretion of the HSE

pursuant to section 37 of the 1991 Act having considered the complexity of the family relationships involved.

18. I cannot excuse the GAL at this time and I note that the HSE support the GAL remaining in place for the duration of the Care

Order.

Section 47 Directions

19. Under section 47 of the 1991 Act, I direct the following:

A. That the case is to be re-entered before the Court by the HSE and on notice to the GAL on [date given] for the

purposes of submitting the amended Care Plan to Court.

B. That the case is to be re-entered before the Court by the HSE and on notice to the GAL in the event of the

following:

(i) the Current allocated Social Worker/Fostering Link Worker becomes unallocated to this case for a

period of two weeks;

(ii) any planned or unplanned change of current foster placement; or

(iii) the Review meeting planed for May 2013 does not take place for any reason.

C. The Case is re-entered before the Court on [date given] to consider whether the duration Order will be extended

further.

D. That any possible reporting of these proceedings according to Statutory Instrument No 467 of 2012 does not

take place until the prosecution of the father is completed; the reporting must be fully anonymised thereafter.