District Court makes Care Orders for four children under Child Care Act 1991 s.18 due to neglect and domestic violence.

[2013] IEDC 8

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE

APPLICANT

-AND-

JO, RO & SG

RESPONDENTS

CHILD CARE ACT 1991— SECTION 18

IN THE MATTER OF CHILD 1, CHILD 2, CHILD 3, CHILD 4

7 March 2013

1. Neither the first nor second named respondents were present for the hearing. The second named respondent is reported to be

unlawfully at large, having absconded from a detention centre while serving a prison sentence. The first named respondent had been

given temporary release from a women’s prison in January 2013, but has reportedly not complied with the conditions of same, and has

come to Garda attention since. The first named respondent is the mother to each of the four children in these proceedings. Neither

the mother nor the second named respondent has instructed their solicitors for some time. Counsel for the mother had previously

advised the Court that he had not received instructions from him for some time, and he was not present. Counsel for the second

named respondent had not received instructions either, and although present for the hearing, did not participate.

2. The third named respondent was present, with the assistance of an interpreter, and he was legally represented.

3. The children’s Guardian ad litem (“GAL”) who was also present and was legally represented, as was the HSE.

4. Psychologist 1 gave evidence and adopted her report dated 28 February 2013 dealing with Child 2, which was before the Court.

She was concerned about her lack of wariness with strangers, inappropriate over-friendly behaviour, and on-going somatic

complaints, and clinginess and reassurance seeking from her carer. She also detailed disclosures by Child 2 of significant incidents of

witnessing domestic violence against her mother, and of a number of incidents indicating chronic neglect, and concluded she had

suffered stress and early childhood traumatic experiences. Alcohol and substance abuse was also referred to by Child 2 as having

occurred while she was in the care of her mother (the first named respondent) and the third named respondent. She has improved

considerably since coming into care, and has developed a strong attachment to her carer, and has repeatedly expressed her desire to

stay there. She also clearly stated that she did not want maternal or relative access. Psychologist 1 concluded that a long-term

foster placement is in Child 2’s best interests, and that maternal and relative access should not take place at present. Access was

suspended last year, following which Child 2’s somatic condition relating to access improved. Due to the mother’s sentence, and

subsequent absence, access has not taken place for a long time. If Child 2’s mother re-engages with the HSE, and undertakes the

necessary work, then access could be re-examined in the future. Child 2 would require on-going psychological intervention to address

her difficulties. Finally, she says that sibling access is important and should be regular, and carefully managed.

5. Psychologist 2 gave evidence and adopted his report dated 22 February 2013, dealing with Child 1, which was also before the

Court. Child 1 initially presented as a child with traumatic symptoms arising from her earlier childhood, including chronic neglect,

domestic violence, absent parents, and alcohol and substance abuse on the part of her parents. She also alleged that the third

named respondent had been physically abusive to her on a number of occasions. Child 1 tended to take on parental type roles, and

continues to do so even now; Psychologist 2 gave examples of very recent role play by Child 1 where she took on the role of teacher,

and he contrasted how she did so now, compared to when she first came into care, in that she is now more sympathetic in her role.

Child 1 now refuses to use her own surname, and has stopped calling the first named respondent ‘mum’. Discussions regarding access

to her ‘mum’ or granny, or incidents where she accidentally comes into contact with relatives or former schoolmates still cause her

high levels of stress. She has settled very well into her placement (with Child 2) and says she wants to stay there. He concludes that

she requires a long-term foster placement to promote her sense of security and stability. She is strongly opposed to access with

members of her birth family (apart from her father), and Psychologist concludes that access is not in her best interests at present.

Sibling access however would be beneficial. She requires on-going support from Social Worker 1, and psychological support to help her

work through her past traumatic experiences.

6. Psychologist 3 gave evidence and adopted his report dated 25 October 2012. This was a psychological assessment of the third

named respondent, carried out over four lengthy interviews in September and October last. His conclusions were that the third named

respondent was ‘faking good’, presenting an idealised version of his own past, and of his life with the family, and the treatment of the

mother’s children while he lived with them. He also contradicted himself on numerous occasions, and overall, Psychologist 3 felt that

he was in denial about the traumatic experiences of the children, and that his credibility was highly questionable. Given that he denied

allegations by the Child 1 and Child 2 that he had hit them, and that they had consistently maintained this to several people over a

long time, his denials must be suspect at the very least. He has little insight into how such experiences might have affected the

children, and displayed no sense of empathy; he is caught up with his feelings that he is the victim in all this. Psychologist 3 has

grave reservations about the third named respondent’s readiness to engage in treatment or therapy required to deal with the

foregoing, and to enable him to improve his capacity to parent his son, Child 4. While he is categorised in certain respects as ‘low risk’

to the children, he could be considered to be of ‘medium risk’ to them, if, as suspected, he was aware of the neglect and risk to

which the children were exposed while he lived with them. Overall, he says that at best, the third named respondent colluded with a

failure to identify and prevent abuse and neglect of the mother’s children, Child 1, Child 2, and Child 3, and at worst he modelled

aggressive and violent behaviour to their mother, while inflicting harsh and inappropriate punishment on the children themselves.

7. Social Worker 2 gave evidence and referred to his reports which were before the Court, and also to his parenting capacity

assessment of the third named respondent, dated 30 November 2012. The mother has not engaged with the HSE since coming out of

prison, nor has the second named respondent. The older children (Child 1 and Child 2) are doing very well in their placement and have

formed secure attachments. The younger children (Child 3 and Child 4) have had three changes of placement, but their present

placement is working well, and the carers have indicated their willingness to provide long term care. Child 1, Child 2, and Child 3 (the

mother’s children with the second named respondent) experienced significant neglect before admission to care, and Child 1 and Child 2

missed significant amounts of time from school. The mother has a serious addiction problem, and in spite of attending residential

treatment for a month, she has failed to maintain the aftercare programme. She has also failed to engage adequately with the various

services offered to her to assist her in addressing her difficulties. The parenting assessment of the third named respondent concluded

that he does not have the capacity to meet the parenting needs of Child 4. With regard to access, he said that the mother and the

second named respondent would need to have a high level of engagement with them before access could be re-considered. Sibling

access should be reinstated following a period to allow the younger children settle after their recent change of placement.

8. The third named respondent gave evidence through an interpreter. He denied all of the allegations referred to in the reports and

evidence of the previous witnesses, including violence towards the mother, beating the children, and the mother’s drinking, and

parties in the house. He also claimed that while he was there, the children went to school and were well looked after. He said he felt

that the innocent person here was being accused. He said, in relation to Psychologist 3’s evidence that he was untruthful, that he

had difficulty understanding the questions. He would do his best to look after his child (Child 4), and that he loved him more than he

loved himself. He explained the lack of school attendance by Child 1 and Child 2 by saying that he didn’t feel he should intrude, and

then that the mother’s family often took the children away for days at a time. Her family were always against him and wanted him to

leave. In general, however, he frequently failed to address the questions asked of him today, and his answers were in vague and

general terms. I regret to say that based on all the evidence I have heard in this matter, I find him to be evasive and lacking in

credibility. He undoubtedly feels that given his short involvement in the life of the family, and the hostility he received from the

mother’s own family, that he should not be held responsible for what happened to the children while he was in the home. However, it

is of serious concern to the Court that even taking the most benign view of his involvement, i.e. that he did not perpetrate the

physical or sexual abuse alleged against him, the inescapable evidence is that serious neglect and abuse of the children took place

while he lived with them as a family, and that he did little or nothing to try to prevent this or to seek assistance from the appropriate

authorities. This in turn indicates his unsuitability to be a sole parent to his son (Child 4) at the present time.

9. The GAL also gave evidence. He referred to his final report, dated 7 March 2013, and to his previous eleven reports, going back to

his initial report dated 10 October 2011. He fully supports the HSE’s application for long-term care orders in respect of all four

children. He also stated that having listened to the evidence today, he had heard nothing that would change his view. He became

involved initially when the children were being taken into care, at which stage the intention was to re-integrate them into the family;

however, as disclosures emerged to the foster carers, it became clear that this was a case of serious neglect and abuse. Disclosures

were made slowly to the carers of drinking, parties in the home, and strange men coming to the house. Child 1 and Child 2 have

maintained their positions steadfastly since they first made the disclosures and have made them to several different professionals, as

well as to their carer. He says it is extraordinary for children of their ages to maintain such views for so long and he feels this

indicates the truthfulness of their views. With regard to Child 3, he says that she is an immature four year old, and he felt uneasy

meeting her with the lack of wariness she displayed of a stranger and that she sat inappropriately close to him to the extent that he

had to ask her foster father to deal with it. He said that was unusual for a child of her age. She needs to be protected, and requires

psychological intervention, and life story work will be very important with her, as with the others. Sibling access is equally important

in the cases of Child 3 and Child 4. He felt that their carers needed to be assisted to ensure that such access was managed and

carefully structured rather than casual. He had spoken to the third named respondent last week, and again today before Court, and

was extremely alarmed at his stance regarding the various allegations referred to above, and in the various reports. He found him

inconsistent, trying to be a father figure on the one hand, and refusing to take responsibility for things that happened while he was in

the home on the other, and trying to place the blame on everyone else. He also told him that he had nothing further to learn from

professionals, and couldn’t understand why so many psychologists were involved. The GAL agrees that contact with the mother

should be suspended, and that the children were emphatic about this and that they had nightmares about having contact with their

mother. Considerable engagement by the mother would be required before contact could recommence. He said this was an unusual

position for him to take; usually, as a GAL, he tries to promote contact. He had observed access between the third named respondent

and Child 4, and found it to be appropriate, and that the third named respondent got on well with Child 4. It should remain at its

current level: one hour every two weeks. It can be revised upwards if he engages with the services, and this can be dealt with at the

discretion of the HSE under section 37 of the Child Care Act 1991 and in child in care reviews. He advised that the third named

respondent should take Psychologist 3’s report and work through it to address the concerns it raises. The second named respondent

has been invisible to his three children (Child 1, Child 2, and Child 3), so contact with him should be suspended until he too engages

with the HSE.

10. The GAL raised his concerns that at times there was insufficient contact between the Social workers and the psychologists, and

that there needs to be close co-operation between all professionals in this case, so that all are aware of the work being done by the

others. He was also dismayed by the fact that two placements for Child 3 and Child 4 had broken down, without him being made

aware of it. Overall, the contents of the GAL’s final report, dated 7 March 2013, in which he details the ‘poor inter professional

communications which sadly formed a continued theme in this case’ cause the Court considerable concern.

Threshold Criteria under section 18 of the Child Care Act 1991

11. In my opinion, having heard the evidence summarised very briefly above, and having read the large number of reports from the

witnesses, and having regard to the conditions set out in section 18(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the Child Care Act 1991, the conditions

required for the making of a Care Order have been established in the case of each of the four children and I therefore make the

orders.

Directions under section 47 of the Child Care Act 1991

12. Having regard to the concerns expressed by the GAL regarding the management of this case, I specifically include all of his

recommendations set out at paragraph 8.8. of his last report as terms of the order.

13. I further order that he remain in place for a period of two weeks from the date of this order, and that he be re-appointed twelve

weeks prior to the review referred to at paragraph 8.8 (iv).

14. I also make an order for his costs. I approve the care plans presented to the court.