District Court dismisses interim care order application due to inability to prove risk of harm outweighs home safety.

[2013] IEDC 25

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

Health Service Executive

APPLICANT

AND

S (the mother) and T (the father)

RESPONDENT

Child Care Act 1991 (CCA)

In the matter of E, F, G, H, (the children)

EB guardian ad litem to the children.

[Note: This version of the original decision delivered is prepared for the purpose of publication. Any changes from to the original are

intended only to be as to form and not as to substance, and are for the purpose of reducing the possibility of identification of the

children.]

1. This is an application made by the Health Service Executive [the applicant] under section 17 (1) of the Child Care Act 1991 [the

1991 Act] for an interim care order in respect of each of the children. The parents are not married to each other. Both parents

contested the application. The guardian ad litem, unusually, was appointed to the children after the completion of the evidence of

the parties and their witnesses, but before the conclusion / decision in the case.

2. Section 17 (1) of the 1991 Act provides as follows:-

17.—(1) Where a justice of the District Court is satisfied on the application of the Health Service Executive that—

(a) an application for a care order in respect of the child has been or is about to be made (whether or not an emergency

care order is in force), and

(b) there is reasonable cause to believe that any of the circumstances mentioned at paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of section

18(1) exists or has existed with respect to the child and that it is necessary for the protection of the child’s health or

welfare that he be placed or maintained in the care of the Agency pending the determination of the application for the

care order, the justice may make an order to be known and in this Act referred to as an “interim care order”.

3. The application was heard over 7 dates, in late 2012 and early 2013, the court giving such time as was available on each date. I

met with the 3 older children prior to the conclusion of the hearing.

4. The applicant was represented by its solicitors.

5. Mother attended the hearing, and was legally represented by solicitor and counsel. Mother also had the assistance of an advocate

at the hearing.

6. Father attended the hearing, and was legally represented at the hearing by his solicitor.

7. The guardian ad litem was legally represented by his solicitor following his appointment.

8. E and F are in their early teens, G is late pre teen, H is an infant.

9. There have been no previous Orders of this court in respect of the children.

10. Evidence was heard from the following 10 witnesses:-

i. Garda L

ii. K, community social care worker

iii. P, YAP manager

iv. M, manager, family support service

v. R, social worker

vi. D,YAP

vii. Father

viii. Mother

ix. A, family friend

x. Guardian ad litem.

11. The evidence given by Garda L was in effect a summary of the Garda file relating to this family, both in respect of "child

protection issues" and in respect of criminal matters. Garda L neither witnessed nor investigated any of the matters to which he

referred in his evidence. As such, his evidence was hearsay evidence. The evidence given by Garda L was not formally admitted by

the respondents, although aspects of it, were acknowledged by the respondents. I have not relied on the evidence of Garda L save

and insofar as it has been actually admitted and/or acknowledged by the respondents. This does not preclude evidence being given in

respect of such matters by the appropriate witness at any stage in this or any other inquiry.

12. The medical report dated 3 July 2012 Dr W was admitted into evidence.

13. A number of documents have been furnished to the court which have not been formally proved. Principal among these is a

psychological report dated [date redacted], and school reports. All parties have relied to some extent on these documents, and for

the purpose of this decision I also rely upon them.

14. It is accepted by all parties that mother has a mild intellectual disability. This is summarised in the first sentence of the

conclusions of the psychological report as follows "cognitive assessment ... indicates that (mother) is functioning at the upper end of

the extremely low range of intellectual ability".

15. No medical evidence has been furnished in respect of father’s medical condition. It appears however that he has suffered from a

stroke and that he continues to require treatment for same. The extent of his ongoing disability is not clear however it appears that

he does have at least some physical limitations.

16. Evidence has been given by the social worker R and by the other witnesses on behalf of the applicant in respect of matters that

are of concern to the applicant. These concerns fall under the following general headings; firstly, the housing issue, being the

physical conditions of the family’s living accommodation, both in their previous address and their present address; secondly, the

relationship between mother and F, including very heightened arguments and physical altercations; thirdly, the safety issue, being a

lack of attention to safety in the home and leaving the children home alone; fourthly, the boundaries issue, being lack of boundaries,

failure to define and impose appropriate boundaries on the children’s behaviour; fifthly, the education issue, including failure by F in

particular to achieve F’s potential, lack of stimulation, lack of appropriate routines regarding school, including attendance and

homework.

17. The Housing issue: The evidence of the applicant’s witnesses with regard to the families living accommodation is stark. The

condition of the family’s former home was described by R, and by M. R’s evidence was in general as set out at s. 6.2 of his report. His

description was confirmed by M, an experienced member of the family support service, who inter alia described finding excrement

smeared on walls, filthy bed clothes, refuse bags inappropriately stored in the house, and food debris. In her evidence, mother denied

the specifics of the description by the applicant’s witnesses, and while she accepted that there were some difficulties she maintained

that these arose because of flooding, or difficulties with the landlord. A description of the present living accommodation was given in

evidence by R, as set out in his report at page 12, 1st and 2nd paragraphs. He contends that this description indicates that, while

matters may not have reached the point that they had reached at the previous address, nevertheless a similar pattern of

deterioration is evident. In her evidence, mother denied the specifics of the descriptions by R, while she accepted that there were

some difficulties these arose because of plumbing/heating system problems, or difficulties with the landlord. I do not accept mother’s

evidence, either as to the extent or the causation of the condition of the two houses. While I accept that such difficulties as

flooding, and uncooperative landlords, might explain or justify the occurrence of some of the conditions described (which occurrence

would of course require attention), I do not accept that such issues in themselves can explain or justify the persistence and

repetition of such conditions. I find that the living conditions of the children at their former address were unacceptable and

inappropriate. I accept that the conditions in the present house may at present be acceptable, (as indicated by the guardian ad litem

and by A), nevertheless I find that it is likely (“likely” meaning that there is a real possibility of ) that the deterioration of the present

living accommodation will continue until it reaches the stage of avoidably impairing the health development or welfare of the children.

I find the facts proven as set out above, and that on the basis of those facts there is reasonable cause to believe that by reason of

their housing conditions the children's health development or welfare has been avoidably impaired or neglected and that the children's

health development or welfare is likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected.

18. The relationship between mother and E: Extensive evidence has been given by R and D regarding physical altercations between E

and mother. This included evidence of incidents witnessed by D, and other incidents reported to the social work department of the

applicant (including by E). For the purpose of this hearing I am taking into account only those incidents witnessed by R and D, and

those confirmed by mother in her evidence. It is not necessary for this court to make any finding with regard to whether any of these

particular incidents might constitute assault by either party, nor whether brush handles or other implements were used by either

party. What I find on the evidence is that high conflict arguments have occurred on several occasions and have involved physical

altercations which have had at least the potential for injury of each party. This is a very difficult situation for both mother and child.

Both mother and child contribute to the difficulty. The real issue is the management of these occurrences by mother and her response

to proposed interventions. I note in particular mother’s evidence in relation to her involvement in these incidents, and to the

strategies which she states she employs in respect of E. Her evidence contradicts the evidence given by R and D on behalf of the

applicant. She places primary responsibility for the occurrence of the incidents on E. I do not accept mother’s evidence. I find that

she has failed to appropriately manage situations of potential and actual conflict that have arisen between herself and E in that she

has become involved in conflict and has become heightened and aggressive in a way that a parent should avoid, regardless of

provocation or misbehaviour by the child – it is primarily the responsibility of the parent to avoid any particular situation developing

into potential or actual conflict and/or to de-escalate any such situation if it does arise. I am satisfied that she has not (in those

instances which were witnessed by R and D) employed the strategies which she described in her evidence. I find the facts proven as

set out above, and that on the basis of those facts there is reasonable cause to believe that the children's health development or

welfare has been avoidably impaired or neglected and that the children's health development or welfare is likely to be avoidably

impaired or neglected, not only in respect of E but also the other children in that they have witnessed these incidents and that it is

likely that mother’s inability to deal with E is likely (“likely” meaning that there is a real possibility of ) to be repeated in the future

with them.

19. The safety issue: Safety issues raised are in respect of the physical environment in the family home and in respect of the

arrangements (or more precisely lack of arrangements) for childminding. I accept the evidence of the applicant that there has been

inadequate provision for the safety of H with regard to the storage of potentially dangerous materials at a level to which the child has

access and the failure to provide and/or maintain stair gates and cupboard safety locks. I further accept the applicant's evidence

that the general condition of the living accommodation, together with specifics such as broken banister rails may also present a

safety issue. I do not accept mother’s evidence that H is constantly in her sight and that this adequately provides for H’s safety (as

is in any event contradicted by the occurrence of “home alone” incidents). With regard to childminding arrangements, I accept the

evidence of the applicant that the children have been left "home alone" for (probably short) periods of time and that such childminding

arrangements as may have been made by mother, including leaving the younger children in the care of the older children, have been

inadequate and as such present a risk to the safety of the children, as particularly demonstrated by the incident (acknowledged by

mother) when H exited the home and was discovered on the street. The issue of the older children climbing to and jumping from

balconies may be typical of children of their age, but its occurrence, as witnessed by the applicant’s witnesses at times when mother

was not present, underlines the dangers to the children. While mother’s evidence as to why she left the children home alone may be

true, the reasons advanced by her are unacceptable. Proper arrangements must be made at all times for the care of children. I find

the facts proven as set out above, and that on the basis of those facts there is reasonable cause to believe that the children's

health development or welfare has been avoidably impaired or neglected and that the children's health development or welfare is likely

to be avoidably impaired or neglected (“likely” meaning that there is a real possibility of ) in the future by occurrence of similar

incidents.

20. The boundaries issue: the applicant's evidence is that the three older children are disrespectful of their mother in the family home,

and that their conversation with their mother (in particular E) is aggressive and laden with expletives. Further, the older two children

have both received juvenile cautions, E in respect of an incident involving his mother where his mother contacted the gardai, and F in

respect of an alleged shoplifting incident. It would be unfair to mother to relate the behaviour leading to the Garda cautions directly

to a failure to impose or define boundaries, and I specifically do not do so. What I am more concerned with, in the light of being

aware of the behaviours giving rise to the Garda interventions, is what is the ability of mother to define and impose appropriate

boundaries into the future.

21. The education issue: The three school going children have demonstrated considerable academic ability, as evidenced by the

school reports received. E in particular has shown in the past to been academically strong (95th percentile). There was a marked

deterioration in E’s school performance up to and including summer examinations 2012. This position has improved somewhat in

Christmas exams 2012, although E is no longer in the top stream at school. K, community social care worker, gave evidence in relation

to her work with F and G in particular. I accept her evidence that she initially attempted to engage mother in setting up a routine and

assisting the children with their homework, but that mother did not successfully participate, and the witness thereafter worked

directly with the children. I accept her evidence that this work had a positive effect with the children, and that F in particular was

subsequently able to deal with homework. I accept her professional view arising from her observations that the children had no

boundaries or routine upon returning from school, and that the children behaved in a manner that was "dismissive" of their mother. I

note the evidence of R regarding speech and language delay for H, and his concerns regarding lack of stimulation.

22. The evidence given by the applicant’s witnesses was to a large extent given in narrative form, and was not (or at least not in its

entirety) given under specific headings, and in particular not under the headings that I have designated in the above paragraphs.

While I have referred to the evidence under the headings above I accept that the evidence was given as a whole. There was also

evidence given in relation to other matters, which I have not relied upon in reaching this decision, either because I do not regard it as

reaching the balance of probabilities threshold, or as being relevant. This does not preclude evidence being given in respect of such

other matters at any stage in this or any other inquiry.

23. I am satisfied that the “threshold” has been reached i.e. that there is reasonable cause to believe that the circumstances

mentioned at paragraph (b) and (c ) of s18(1) of the 1991 Act exist or have existed in respect of each of the children. On the basis

of the facts that I have found above I consider the guardian ad litem’s assessment at paragraph 11.2 of his report as an excellent

statement of the nature and degree of neglect in this case.

24. Section 17 (1) (b) further provides that before making an interim care order I must be satisfied "that it is necessary for the

protection of the child's health or welfare that he be placed or maintained in the care of the Health Service Executive pending the

determination of the application for the care order".

25. In general terms, the applicant maintains that the making of an interim care order is necessary in this case. The applicant submits

that prior to the institution of the present proceedings, it has over a prolonged period of time sought to assist this family and in

particular the mother in dealing with the identified issues. In his evidence and as set out at part 7 of his report, R lists the

"professionals involved with the social work department to monitor and support of the family" and the extent of such support both

as to its nature and the period(s) of time over which it was provided.

26. In my view, the involvement of the gardai, the schools, the creche, the GP, speech and language service, and the public health

nurse in supporting this family is such as could and should be expected by any family. In addition to receiving these supports, R

identified the following: --

[i] Health Service Executive community social care worker, to provide the services and support set out in the report. K

gave evidence in this regard.

[ii] Health Service Executive community homemaker and family support service, to provide the services and support set

out in the report. M gave evidence in this regard.

[iii] Youth advocate programs (YAP), which provided a family supportive service and a youth advocate to E as set out in

the report. P and D gave evidence in this regard.

[iv] Home help service, citizens information national advocacy service, Strengthening Families Program, …. Family Centre,

… CAHMS, Gateway Respite residential services. No witnesses were called from any of these services. However I accept

R’s evidence that these services were engaged with the family, and his opinion as to the effect (or lack of effect) which

those services had on the identified issues.

27. In addition to the list of professionals as provided by R, he himself on behalf of the social work department of the applicant also

provided support to the family in accordance with his evidence. I accept his evidence that he attempted to engage with the family,

to advise mother regarding the issues which he perceived to be of concern and how they might be addressed, to provide practical

assistance with improving the family's living conditions, and with sourcing engaging and providing the services and interventions

referred to.

28. It is the applicant's case that it has provided or has referred the family to all relevant services and supports that are reasonably

available to assist the family, over a considerable period of time. The applicant maintains that the issues that I have identified as

satisfying the threshold had not been addressed with any consistency. The applicant maintains that while there has on occasion been

some small minimal and short term improvements in response to significant and sustained interventions, such improvements have not

been sustained. The applicant maintains that there has been no real improvement for the children. The applicant maintains that the

purpose of its interventions (and those of the services referred) is to equip the family with the skills necessary to address the

identified issues without the need of permanent intervention or permanent support. The applicant maintains that the mother has not

shown any insight into the concerns it has raised, and indeed does not accept that such concerns are valid. The applicant maintains

that mother has not learned from the services provided and has not demonstrated any significant capacity to do so.

29. It is proposed by the applicant that in the event that the court grants an interim care order, mother would be referred to an

identified intellectual disability community service for an assessment of need and if possible to provide appropriate supports and

instruction to improve her parenting capacity, with the intention of unifying the family if such intervention proved to be successful.

30. Both of the respondents gave evidence. The three older children resided for some time with their father outside this jurisdiction,

until he became ill, approximately 5 years ago. Since that date, they have resided with their mother. Over the past five years, father

has spent "some time" with his family in Ireland, although I remain unclear as to how much time he actually spent here. He has

remained in Ireland for most (but not for all) of the last six months. While he states that he wishes to take an active part in the care

of children, it is clear from the evidence that he continues to reside outside the jurisdiction where he maintains a home, where he

receives his medical treatment and from where he receives his social welfare payment. He was unable to inform the court of any

concrete plan to move to Ireland on a permanent basis, or indeed as to how much time he might spend in Ireland in the future.

31. It is acknowledged by the applicant that when father is present in the family home that he is to a degree a protective factor in

respect of the children and in particular in respect of boundaries, and behaviours. Nevertheless I conclude on the basis of the

evidence that his at best intermittent presence over the past number of years has not resulted any consistent prevention or

amelioration of the identified issues, in particular the unacceptable housing conditions which his children have lived in. He has not

given any commitment to remain residing with the children on a full-time basis, rather he has indicated that it is his intention to return

to another jurisdiction, for a period of months, and has indicated an intention to return to Ireland thereafter without specifying that

such return would be permanent.

32. I had already set out that I do not accept much of mother’s evidence, in particular where it consisted of denial of the existence

of the concerns expressed by the applicant in relation to the housing relationship and safety issues. I conclude that in her evidence

mother demonstrated no insight into the matters raised by the applicant and the effect of such matters on the children.

33. Both parents submitted it is not necessary for the court to make an interim care order. While denying the existence and/or the

extent and/or the importance of the issues and concerns raised by the applicant, the respondents nevertheless proposed that the

proportionate response to the concerns raised by the applicant would be for the court to grant a supervision order under section 19

of the 1991 Act and that E would go to reside with his father (which the parents suggested was in accordance with the E's wishes).

It was proposed that if E were not residing with mother, the adverse effects of the difficult relationship between E and mother would

no longer affect E or the other children, and that in those circumstances the health and welfare of the three younger children would

be adequately protected by the imposition of a supervision order. These proposals were undermined by mother stating in evidence

that she would not co-operate with a supervision order imposed, and by E stating that he did not wish to reside outside this

jurisdiction.

34. I have had the opportunity to meet with the 3 older children. I am satisfied that to an acceptable degree and in accordance with

their ages they have an understanding of the nature of these proceedings and the potential consequences of the proceedings making

them the subject of an interim care order. They have clearly expressed their views that they do not wish to go into care or to be

made the subject of an order. They have had previous experience of incidents of care, E to a greater extent than the others, and all

of them found the experience to be upsetting and for all of them their primary wish was to return home. I met with them for a

considerable period of time. I accept that what they said to me and the views that they expressed to me are fully set out in the

guardian ad litem report and that there was nothing further in the meeting with me that is not contained in or referred to in the

guardian ad litem report.

35. The issue of mother’s intellectual disability has been raised throughout the case. The applicant’s witnesses were referred to

mother’s intellectual disability and questioned in relation to their delivery of services to mother and the extent (if any) that such

delivery of services took account of her disability. I accept the evidence, particularly of R, but also of the family support service and

YAP witnesses that while they were not formally aware of the diagnosis of an intellectual disability until receipt of the psychological

report dated [date redacted] that they were aware that mother had a difficulty, had an apparent intellectual difficulty and a difficulty

in dealing with the information and advice that was being given to her and that they took that into account in delivering the services

to her, in the advices that they gave to her, that they repeated the advices and information that they were giving to her and that

they endeavoured to deliver it in a manner that she would be capable of accepting. However the applicant and the applicant’s

witnesses have accepted that there is no specific service by the applicant for people with intellectual disability of the type that

mother has i.e. mild intellectual disability, and the delivery of services by the applicant is delivery of mainstream services which are to

be tailored to the disability of the parent or person receiving them. I am satisfied that the witnesses have done as much as they

could do in that context, and in the context of that model of delivery of the services.

36. It is common to the applicant’s witnesses that despite the services that have been provided, and despite their efforts to deliver

them in the manner that was appropriate to what they knew of mother's disability, that mother had not demonstrated any capacity to

learn from those services, and that whatever improvements may have occurred over the period of time during which the services

were delivered was short term and as a result of intensive intervention and repetition of instructions.

37. The question that ultimately falls to be answered in this case, for the purposes of the application for an interim care order, is

whether it is in the interests of the children, at present, that they would be the subject of interim care orders. There are risks to

children if they remain at home but there are also risks to the children if they are placed in care. The risks to the children if they

remain at home are that the situation that has pertained to date, and which I have found pertains and which amounts to neglect and

a threat to their health development and welfare will continue and that that will have an ongoing adverse affect on the children.

However if they are to be placed in care on an interim basis there is a risk that they will not settle in care and that they will not be

happy in care, and as has been referred to by the guardian ad litem, they may in fact bring about the breakdown of any care

placement. That is a risk that attaches to every case, and to every care placement, and I would suggest increases with the age of

the children who may be placed in care and certainly increases when they reach their teens. The prospect of them settling in foster

care, albeit in a placement where they are all placed together, is not high.

38. The thrust of the plan by the applicants, as set out in R’s report at page 35 is (as indeed it should be) towards reunification. The

proposal is “that further work must be done with mother in order to develop her capacity to parent. We have referred mother to

Health Service Executive’s (identified) Intellectual Disability Community Services appropriate to where she resides. In liaison with the

Health Service Executive …psychology service. (the disability service) can undertake an assessment of need with mother and

implement an individualised care plan with her, if she is willing to accept the referral and to work with the service. (The disability

service) will provide support in terms of mother’s emotional and psychological needs. From the perspective of parenting, they will

provide in-house instruction with mother in order to, hopefully, educate her in how to appropriately undertake parenting tasks.” The

purpose of such a program would presumably be to determine firstly whether mother has the parenting capacity and secondly to

support and educate mother in addressing the parenting deficits that have been identified.

39. Although the guardian ad litem was not present to hear the evidence in the case, he has nevertheless prepared what is in my

view a comprehensive report based on a review of the social work file. Having read the guardian ad litem’s report, and subject to

some questions put and to some information that was provided to the guardian ad litem in court, I find that the guardian ad litem’s

report does not depart from what is contained in the social work report of R to any great degree. The guardian ad litem’s assessment

is at part 11 of the report. He accepts, at 11.1, that a high level of community based home support has been provided, and

summarises that despite ongoing and intense support mother has not managed to maintain standards of care for the children, and

that the cumulative effect of the neglectful circumstances compromises their long term health development and well-being. I agree

with his characterisation of chronic neglect.

40. At 11.3 of the guardian ad litem’s report, towards the end of that paragraph, he states “However, there appears to be a case to

create a further opportunity to support the children’s mother and father to compensate for the circumstances which …allow

neglectful events and circumstances to continue. If an appropriately shaped opportunity is unsuccessful then alternative care

arrangements must be considered for the children”. That further focuses what is required to be the decision of the court, which is,

given that such an appropriately shaped opportunity is to be made available, (and that is the services that are to be supplied by the

identified intellectual disability service), whether it is in the interests of the children that they be placed in care during the currency

of that opportunity being “played out”, if I can put it that way, or whether they should remain at home during that time.

41. That decision is a balancing exercise. There is no order that this court can make today that does not carry some risk. There is a

risk to the children if as a result of the order they remain at home. There is a risk to these children if as a result of the order they are

placed into care. I find that I am unable to distinguish between one risk and the other, I cannot at present balance or say that I can

conclude at this stage that the risk of one outweighs the risk of the other.

42. In those circumstances, I am making a proposal to the parties, and it is a matter for the parties to decide whether or not they are

prepared to accept this. It is largely the proposal made by the guardian ad litem, although I have reached it independently of his

proposal. The proposal is to adjourn this application on the basis of the evidence heard, with the agreement of the parties to impose

a supervision order for a period of time while the service that is proposed to be provided by [identified service] is provided, while the

children remain at home. The purpose of endeavouring to deal with the matter in this way is that I have already made findings of fact

in this case. The applicant is entirely justified in bringing an application in this case. I asked the question of the guardian ad litem

whether, absent the issue of mother’s intellectual disability, would this be a case which on the evidence would justify the making of

an interim care order, and he said that in his opinion it would. Although I asked him that question, it was a conclusion that I had

already reached. While I accept that the applicant’s witnesses have done what they can in circumstances where they are dealing

with the delivery of mainstream services to a person with an intellectual disability, in the context where there is a service as identified

and described, the issue is really whether or not the children remain at home while that service is put in place. I cannot find one way

or the other, it is a complete “50:50”. I am suggesting that I adjourn this application as part heard, that a supervision order be

imposed by consent, and in the meantime, the children remain at home. If the matter is to be dealt with in that manner, it is an

absolute requirement that there be the fullest possible cooperation from mother, and anything less that that, any failure in

cooperation would effectively undermine any such arrangement, and would lead to a situation where, without prejudging the matter, I

would suggest that I would then be in a situation where I could balance one against the other, on the basis of balance of probabilities

and reach a conclusion. There is nothing in that suggestion to prevent the applicant from issuing and or filing and or listing for hearing

an application under section 18 of 1991 Act – a section 17 order is not a prerequisite to a section 18 application or order. A section

18 application can remain before this court and be assigned hearing dates even while the suggested work (if agreed) is done. It gets

down to this – this work (by the identified intellectual disability service) clearly has to be done, it is a question of whether the

children should remain at home or not while that work is being done and whether and to what extent that is in their interest. I accept

the guardian ad litem’s assessment that he feels it would be in the children’s interest to remain at home. They certainly want to

remain at home, I recognise the risks of that, I also recognise the risks of placing them in care. I would ask the parties to consider

whether they wish to deal with matters in the manner suggested. If not then I will finalise this application.

43. The parties being unable to reach agreement to deal with this matter on the suggested basis, I will now proceed to finalise the

application. In circumstances where I cannot conclude on the balance of probabilities that remaining at home while the proposed

programme with the identified intellectual disability service is carried out carries more risk to the health development and welfare of

the children than placing them in care, I must decline the application.

44. As the proceedings are at an end, I discharge the guardian ad litem with an order for costs.

45. I wish to point out to the respondents that the conclusion of these court proceedings does not mean and ought not to be taken

to mean that there are no or no legitimate concerns remaining about the various matters raised by the applicant.

Brendan Toale

Children Court

Early 2013