District Court extends interim care order for 28 days due to substance abuse concerns and lack of clear reunification plan.

IEDC [2013] 18

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE

APPLICANTS

- AND -

NC

RESPONDENT

CHILD CARE ACT, 1991 - SECTION 17

IN THE MATTER OF A CHILD

23 October 2013

1. This is an application for an extension of an Interim Care Order under S.17 of the Child Care Act, 1991 (herein after referred to as

‘the 1991 Act’) in respect a child (aged 2).

2. I am satisfied that the mother has been properly served with notice of these proceedings she was present and was legally

represented in Court. The mother contested the extension of the interim care order.

3. I am satisfied that the father has been properly served with notice of these proceedings he was present and was legally

represented in Court. The father supported the Health Service Executive (HSE) application to extend the Interim Care Order.

4. The child’s interests are not separately represented by a Guardian Ad Litem in this case.

5. On 19 December 2012 the HSE sought an interim care however, the court felt that the child was best supported at home with the

mother and a Supervision Order was granted under S.19 of the 1991 Act and a comprehensive protection plan was put in place. On 13

February 2013 the supervision order was reviewed by the court and extended until 15th November 2013. The protection plan remained

in place.

6. On 26 September 2013 the HSE applied for an Interim Care Order under S.17 of the 1991 Act, the mother voluntarily agreed to this

care order by consent under S.4 of the 1991 Act.

7. The HSE are seeking to extend that Care Order as they have concerns that the mother is not able to meet the developmental and

basic care needs of the child at this time and believe that substance abuse issues impede the mother at this time.

8. Evidence of the assigned SW was that the mother’s demeanour and behaviour gave them cause to believe that previously admitted

substance dependency of the mother continued to dominate her life. The SW Department believed that the National Drug Centre

would not now be able to provide treatment for the mother and recommended a community detox through the mother’s GP. The Social

Worker acknowledged the mother’s position that she had abstained from drugs but her behaviour did not support this. It was

acknowledged that the mother has been attending a HSE drug treatment service for assessments and has begun giving urine samples

but results of the urine samples were not available to the court.

9. The mother complained that the child sustained injuries in foster care. This was investigated by the HSE who spoke to the child,

the crèche and the carer and they concluded that the child was safe in the foster placement. The assigned SW conceded on cross

examination that there was a small mark in the child’s ear and a very small mark on than the child’s arm, which might have been

psoriasis.

10. The Social Worker stated that the mother had missed 2 out of 9 recent access visits, was late for 3 visits and 1 visit finished

early and that the father has missed 3 of the 5 planned access visits for the past few weeks.

11. Family Social Worker 1 who has supported access once a week since 9 September said that the mother was not attuned to the

needs of the child. The first feedback given to the mother was to focus on the child and stop texting or ringing on the mobile phone

during the visit. The Family Social Worker said that the in general the mother will spend 5 to 10 minutes reading to the child or playing

with the child and then she will pull away as if she is unable to focus in the child for any longer.

12. Family Social Worker 2 who worked with the mother from April till August 2013 said they observed the mother giving hugs to the

child on an intermittent basis. The Family Social Worker said that the mother didn’t have soap or towels to wash the child, that she

used a duvet cover to dry the child and that the mother was cooking the food but leaving the child to feed itself. The Family Social

Worker said that the mother doesn’t know how to play the child, not that she doesn’t want to play with the child. The Family Social

Worker said that the mother buys the child toys but that she doesn’t play with him.

13. The mother in her evidence was aggressive and highly agitated.

14. She said that she has been suffering from health problems since her child has been taken into care, that she is depressed, that

she has been suffering from sleeplessness. She had no intervention for these things. The mother said that she came off all drugs

including her medications except for her inhaler. She locked herself in her apartment with the blinds drawn to do this and she is now

clean and clear of any substances for the past 9 weeks on Friday (October 25). Absent help she detoxed on her own. The mother

stated that she gets screened by a drug treatment service through supervised urine analysis. The mother said that the drug

treatment programme will not give her urine results to her but that the HSE have to ask them for the results and have failed to do so.

15. The mother stated that she was concerned about the child’s temporary foster placement. The mother said that since the child

moved to this placement the child had become aggressive and showed no affection and had started referring to her by name. The

mother said that the child told her and the grandmother that he was being hit in the new foster home and that when she asked what

was going on in the house the child pointed to his left ear, left eye and his head. The mother said she saw a mark on his upper leg

and a bruise on his arm. The mother stated that she got her mother to report what the child said to the social worker as she felt they

wouldn’t take it seriously from her.

16. The Grandmother said she has access with the child every 2 weeks. She said she was concerned about the child who said they

were being slapped and that she doesn’t think the child is safe where he is. The grandmother stated that during the last access visit

the child was distant and wouldn’t interact with them or her children. She said that she contacted the social workers about her

concerns.

DECISION

17. I have heard the evidence of:

• The Social Worker;

• The Mother;

• The Family Support Worker 1;

• The Family Support Worker 2, and

• The Grandmother.

A. Having heard the evidence set out above and having observed the demeanour and behaviour of the mother in

Court I have no doubt that the mother is not capable of caring safely for a young child at this time. On that basis I

am going to extend the care order for a 2 week period until 6 November 2013, this is a proportionate extension

designed to give the mother the opportunity of taking medical treatment, and gaining sufficient composure to

address the case in Court. I note the disputatious relationship between the mother and the father and his

demeanour and behaviour before the Court. He consents through his solicitor to the extension of the Interim Care

Order on a strictly without prejudice basis.

B. No professional has indicated to the Court that the mother doesn’t love her child or indeed that her child does

not love her. The issue outlined in evidence is that of substance abuse and homelessness which impedes the ability

of the mother to care adequately for the child. The court has been advised by the mother that she went “cold

turkey” in order to detoxify her-self but there no corroborating evidence before the court of any of this, either from

the mother’s representative or the HSE.

C. It is also regrettable that certain aspirations for family reunification following detoxification were set out when

this matter was last in court and the mother was not assisted to achieve that goal. A programme of work was

outlined for the court but for a variety of reasons this does not appear to have happened.

D. I appreciate the mother’s position that she said she has fulfilled her part in this plan but I have no corroborating

evidence of this, and her demeanour in court is not assuring. I am also concerned that she is not assisted to

participate in understanding the issues by an advocate although she is legally represented. It is essential that she is

helped to engage in that regard.

E. I am also conscious by what the mother says about her sleeplessness, about her isolation, the fact she has and

it is to her credit that she has, come off her medication without any medical supervision. Part of that medication

she has told the court is folic acid and iron tablets which may in and of itself account for her exhaustion and

demeanour. There is no medical evidence before the court to affirm or disprove the medical conditions which the

mother says she has. From the mother’s perspective that is absolutely unsatisfactory.

F. Having regard to the evidence that I have heard I am obliged to extend the Interim Care Order for a period, but I

am not going to extend it for 28 days.

G. There must be a plan before the court on the next occasion to address the threshold criteria of the Order that

may be sought by the HSE, access issues in the intervening period and plans to support access with the assistance

of a Marte Meo therapist to assist the engagement of mother and child.

H. There are complaints that the mother is doing various things that she could be doing better, however it must be

asked whether she really understands what is required of her, and the services to be made available to the mother

to achieve her goal of family reunification.

I. I am also concerned that there has been a complaint in respect of injuries suffered by a child in care and that the

child wasn’t taken to a doctor. When a mother and father are deprived of their child and concerns are raised not

only by the mother but also the grandmother then there should have been a medical intervention to establish the

position.

J. I am extending the Interim Care Order to the 6/11/2013 but this case will not be allowed to continue in an

unfocused manner. It is unfair to the mother, to the child and the father. The court requires clarity of any specific

plans proposed , identified services, and service providers, all medical intervention to be made available for the

mother and the supports she is to receive during access pending her goal of reunification so that she can achieve

the standard of care of the child that is being required of her.

K. Clarity around the mother’s drug treatment programme and urine results must be before the before the court in

two weeks time.