District Court grants Care Order under Child Care Act 1991 s.18 due to severe risk to child's safety.

[2013] IEDC 5

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE

APPLICANT

-AND-

MF & PL

RESPONDENTS

CHILD CARE ACT 1991— SECTION 18

IN THE MATTER OF A CHILD

7 February 2013

History

1. This is an application for a Care Order by the HSE pursuant to section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991 in respect of the Child (aged

9). The history has been detailed in the reports presented to Court by the various social workers assigned to the case; the Guardian

ad litem (“GAL”); the Foster Care Assessment Professional; and by the Social Worker, in the Parenting Capacity Assessment Report

dated 26 August 2012. I do not propose to recite it in detail here. In summary, I accept that the Child’s early years were

characterised by instability due to domestic violence between his parents (the respondents) and also violence perpetrated on each of

them by others, including in the mother’s case, her former husband and her recent partner. In the father’s case, he was the subject

of several assaults, some serious, by persons with whom he associated due to his involvement in illegal drug use. The Child was

undoubtedly exposed from time to time to seeing his parents suffering from physical and emotional trauma, and in turn this caused

stress and emotional upset to the Child. The HSE has been involved with the family from very early in the Child’s life, resulting in him

being taken into care, or moved between his parents on a number of occasions. There is a helpful chronology at Section 3 of the

GAL’s report dated 28 January 2013 which outlines this unfortunate history.

2. Both parents have had significant issues with alcohol and drug abuse, and have engaged over the same period with a variety of

addiction services. They have enjoyed periods of abstinence during this time, often for significant lengths of time, but with a pattern

of reverting to abuse. The mother also has a long history of mental illness and continues to be treated for this; it too is characterised

by periods of mental well-being, some of durations of a year or more, but again with a history of relapse. Of particular concern, as

detailed in the evidence of the Clinical Director of the local Mental Health Service, and who, for some time, was the mother’s treating

psychiatrist, is the danger to the Child’s safety that arises when the mother’s periods of alcohol abuse coincide with mental illness,

thereby complicating her situation. The Clinical Director’s evidence is that she suffers from ‘quite severe mood disorder’ and is bi-polar,

and that this is complicated by periods of severe and reckless alcohol abuse. When she is mentally unwell, she is unable to provide

the required level of care for her Child. He said that the last 12 to 18 months have probably been the best for her in terms of her

mental health. However, he said that he could not guarantee that this will continue into the future, and that her history has been one

of frequent relapse. She requires ongoing treatment — ideally cognitive behaviour therapy — and he is willing to assist her in obtaining

this to the extent that he can. He said that in cases such as hers, a period of sustained recovery of two years or more would be

regarded as good progress, and that five years of good mental health would give rise to an ‘excellent prognosis’. He acknowledged

that she has made good progress since her admission to the Hospital in October 2011, and that she has continued to attend the

aftercare provided by the Hospital since then.

3. I have also had the benefit of a Parenting Assessment compiled by the Social Worker, and on which evidence was given by the

Social Worker. He noted that both parents were very open and co-operative with them during the assessment. He said that the

Child’s life at home had little stability, and that the Child had got used to looking after himself, and had become independent beyond

his years. With regard to the mother, his concern was that when she was drinking, she would be unaware of the risks to the Child

caused by her condition. She has also on occasion failed to take her medication, and has self-medicated, resulting in deterioration in

her mental health. If this occurred while she was drinking, it would have a negative effect on her mental health, and her ability to

care properly for the Child. With regard to the father, his concerns were that on two previous occasions when the Child was in the

care of his father, he had to be removed by the Gardaí. He had concerns about the father’s capacity to parent the Child, his alcohol

issues, individuals he had associated with, and the possibility that he was drinking heavily over last Christmas. There was concern

that his engagement with addiction services was compulsory rather than voluntary and that he did not focus on his addiction. His

conclusion is that they lack the ability to prioritise the Child’s needs into the future, and that up to now they have not shown a

capacity to take on board advice and are unable to comprehend how their behaviour impacted on the Child in the past. It is

acknowledged that there is a strong emotional bond between the Child and his parents, but their inability to sustain avoidance of

alcohol, and adherence to support and in the mother’s case, mental health treatment, give rise to immense concern about the risk to

the Child’s safety and welfare.

4. The Social Work Team Leader, gave evidence summarising the involvement of the Social Work department in this case, and of the

assessments carried out. These are detailed below. She stated that if a Care Order was made, a long term social worker would be

assigned to the Child.

5. The Foster Care Assessment Professional conducted an attachment assessment and compiled a report dated 30 July 2012. She

concluded that on admission to care, the Child was a highly avoidant child, and had become ‘parental’ — assuming a level of

responsibility and control which was beyond his capacity to manage. An example of this was his obsession with clocks and time when

first taken into care, indicative of his anxiety to ensure he was up in time for school. His attachment patterns have become

considerably more secure over his time in care. He has settled well in his placement, and indeed it is noteworthy that all of the

professionals involved in this case have commented on the Child’s happy personality, and intelligence, good humour, and social skills.

Although he is now secure, he retains anxiety which re-emerged following two access visits in January 2013. He is very loyal to his

parents and worries about them. He particularly worries about his mother’s health, and in the witness’s words, he is ‘carrying too big a

burden’. He is conflicted in that on the one hand, he would be relieved if a Care Order was made, although also afraid, while if

returned home he would be willing to resume his former adult role. He needs the security of a long-term placement. She stressed the

critical importance of his parents allowing him the freedom to settle in his placement and supporting rather than undermining it. The

family he is with now are providing consistent physical and emotional care, and are willing to provide this as his long-term carers. He

would then be able to get on with being a ten-year-old boy.

6. The father gave evidence that in September 2011 he had been having access, including overnight access, to the Child for some

time and that it had been going well. He has been sober for over a year and attends AA meetings twice a week. He has ‘cut loose’ the

other individuals about whom there was concern, but said ‘they still come after me’ and regard him as the bad boy. He spoke movingly

of how he wanted to be a normal parent for his son, and how he loves his son, and how his son loves him. He made little of concerns

about his own health, and said that he didn’t plan on having future relapses. He also denied any domestic violence against the

mother.

7. The mother gave evidence that her last drink was in September 2011, and that she was now compliant with her medication, and

that sometimes she jokes about getting rid of them to professionals. She said she had ended her relationship with her former partner,

and had not been involved in any relationships since. In a brave and remarkably unselfish way, she said that if a Care Order was to be

made, she would do her utmost during access to ensure that the Child has a good relationship with his foster family. She expressed

some frustration with the psychiatric service, saying that she has never been told what exactly is wrong with her.

8. The GAL also gave evidence. He had observed access twice and noted that the Child enjoyed it and was very attentive to his

parents, watching them carefully, and being adept at re-directing questions that made him feel uncomfortable. Access outdoors has

been very beneficial, particularly when an activity has taken place. The Child would like to live at home with his parents, though when

it is pointed out that they don’t live together, he says he would like to live with his mother, when she is well. He was very upset last

August when told that a long-term care order was to be sought. On 21 January 2013, the GAL had a further discussion with him about

this, and he became upset again, saying he wanted to live with his mother. As the discussion progressed, he asked about access to

his parents if a Care Order was made and whether he could remain with his current carers in such event. The GAL also noted that the

Child enjoyed access to his siblings, and was anxious to maintain this. He is anxious about his long-term future, but has made the

most of his situation. It is very important for the parents to allow the Child to enjoy his day-to-day life and settle in his foster home,

and he believes both parents understand this. Access should continue, on a reduced basis, but the reduction should be gradual, over

a period of six months, with a review after three months. Joint access has been going well but separate access should be given from

time to time, as this might support the Child in realising that his parents are not together. It is also vital that the Child is supported by

a social worker, and that a strong relationship be developed with his social worker. He had a good bond with his former social worker

who is now going on maternity leave, so this matter needs to be addressed urgently by the HSE.

Section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991: Decision

9. Having heard all of the witnesses, and having reviewed all of the reports, a number of things are clear to me.

10. The Child is a bright, intelligent child who is well settled in his placement, doing very well at school, has made very good friends at

school and where he lives, and enjoys a healthy range of pastimes and sports. He is a credit to his parents, and they are rightly proud

of him. There is no doubt that they love him, and want what is best for him, and that love is reciprocated by the Child. His early life

was disrupted by the chaotic, dysfunctional, and violent behaviour of either or both his parents throughout his life, which derived from

their addictions and the mother’s mental illness. Both parents, and particularly the mother, have made considerable progress in

addressing their difficulties over the past 18 months, since the Child was admitted to care, and they deserve great credit for this. I

genuinely hope they can sustain their recoveries into the future, as if they do that will be of great comfort and benefit to the Child,

as well as themselves. Regrettably, the evidence is that they have been unable to sustain such progress heretofore, and in the case

of the mother, a longer period of good mental health is required to give a good prognosis. It is too early, therefore, to conclude that

the risks to the Child when in their care in the past will not recur. The evidence of the Social Worker and the Foster Care Assessment

Professional in particular is that as the Child has suffered four removals to date, any further removal following a return home would be

very detrimental to him. I accept that at present, neither parent has the capacity to provide the stable, consistent parenting that

the Child needs. I have concerns over their lack of insight into the effect of past behaviour and exposure to domestic violence, cycles

of addiction, and poor mental health on the Child. Therefore, I am obliged, in order to avoid a serious risk to the Child’s health and

welfare, to make a Care Order under section 18 of the 1991 Act.

11. I am very conscious that the parents will be deeply upset at this. However, based on their evidence to the Court, I believe that in

their heart of hearts, they accept that this is in the Child’s best interests. I appeal to them therefore, to give the Child three things

which are within their power to give him: their unconditional love and support; their permission to allow him settle into his foster family

and live as a ten year old boy; and their ongoing commitment to work to address their respective addictions and mental health issues.

By doing so, they can demonstrate into the future their expressed desire to do what is in the Child’s best interests. I have no doubt

that the bond between them and the Child is strong enough to ensure that they maintain loyal and beneficial relationships into the

future with him, and he with them, and I have no fears that his love for his parents, or his anxiety to be involved with them will

weaken.

Section 47 of the Child Care Act 1991: Directions

12. I direct as follows:

(a) After-care review on 17th birthday or next business day, GAL to be re-appointed eight weeks in advance.

(b) Case to be re-entered by HSE and GAL re-appointed forthwith in the event of any of the following:

i. non allocation of case to social worker for 6 weeks;

ii. non allocation of case to fostering link social worker for 6 weeks;

iii. failure to hold statutory child in care reviews in accordance with the statutory timetable;

iv. if long term placement identified to the Court at the care order hearing terminates for any reason - if

termination is planned GAL is to be re-appointed 4 weeks in advance of planned termination date ; or

v. if HSE does not complete process of long term approval of foster carers (including ‘matching’) within

6 months of order.

(c) If GAL is not available or no longer practicing at date of any re-entry, HSE to apply forthwith to Court to have new GAL

appointed.

(d) I approve the Care Plan, subject to the necessary amendment thereof consequent on the fact that the current Social Worker will

not be the allocated social worker.

(e) I direct that access should be dealt with as set out in the GAL’s report dated 28 January 2013 at paragraph 11.6 thereof. I am

particularly anxious that the Child’s wishes are taken into account in the ongoing management of access, and that sibling access is

available to him to the fullest extent possible. The parents can be reassured by the strong likelihood that once the Child has certainty

about his future, he will want to ensure that access is used to strengthen and maintain his bond with his parents. I note that the GAL

has offered to assist the Child in dealing with the transition to reduced access and I feel this is important for the Child.