District Court grants Care Order for 2 years due to mother's alcohol relapse risk and failed reunification plans.

[2014] IEDC 05

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

CHILD & FAMILY AGENCY

APPLICANT

AND

OM

RESPONDENT

CHILD CARE ACT 1991 – SECTION 18

CARE ORDER

IN THE MATTER OF M, A CHILD

07 January 2014

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 a child who is 11 years of age. This case was heard over 2 days. The child is currently in the care of the Child & Family

Agency (CFA) formerly the Health Service Executive (HSE). The child was admitted to the care of the then HSE by way of a voluntary

care agreement in December 2009 and later an Interim Care Order was made in respect of the child. The child was reunited with

his/her mother in mid 2010 under a Supervision Order but was returned to the care of the then HSE by way of a voluntary care

agreement in early 2011 until the mother revoked that agreement in early 2013, at which time an Interim Care Order was granted by

the Court. That Order has been extended by the Court on 6 occasions since that date.

2. I am satisfied that OM, the mother, has been properly served with notice of these proceedings and was present in Court for the

hearing and was represented by Ms. AS, Legal Aid Board.

3. I am satisfied that the Court has jurisdiction to hear this application.

4. The views and interests of the child were represented in these proceedings by his/her Guardian Ad Litem CM. The Guardian Ad

Litem (GAL) indicated to the Court her support for a Care Order in respect of the child and recommended such Order for the full

duration.

5. On the day of hearing the mother indicated to the Court, through her legal representative, her opposition to the making of a Care

Order in respect of the child to age 18. On the second day of the hearing the mother offered evidence to the Court and suggested a

care order of 2 years duration in order to allow her to engage with counselling and addiction supports and to make sufficient progress

to parent the child adequately.

6. I have heard the evidence of RF the Allocated Social Worker, JL the Social Care Worker, RF the Clinical Psychologist, and KM the

Access Worker in support of the CFA’s case.

7. I have heard the evidence of the child’s mother opposing the CFA’s application.

8. I have heard the evidence of CM, the Guardian ad Litem who supported the CFA’s application.

9. Having heard the evidence set out above it is clear that both the child and the mother are vulnerable people, each in their own

right, and that the mother loves her child. It is also clear that the mother has made some progress in addressing her emotional,

psychological and addiction difficulties. I hope this progress can be sustained and progressed by the mother. However, it does not

appear that she has made sufficient progress at this time to enable her to resume care of her child and to meet the challenges of full

time parenting of her child. I have considered the findings of fact submitted by the CFA to be proven and having taken into account

the views, interests and wishes of the child (indirectly expressed to the Court through the GAL) I am satisfied that in respect of the

child the threshold criteria under section 18 (1)(c) of the 1991 Act are met and that the child’s health, development and welfare

would suffer if a Care Order were not granted. The duration of the Care Order shall be until the child reaches 18 years of age. My

reasons for making this order for this duration are having considered the following:

(i) the mother’s inability to cope with her own emotional stresses and subsequent inability to place the child’s needs

above her own;

(ii) the mother’s acknowledged misuse of alcohol and, while there is no evidence of the mother’s recent misuse of

alcohol before me neither is there evidence that she has properly addressed her addiction, and I am satisfied

without engagement with proper supports her risk of relapse is high;

(iii) the mother’s inability to engage meaningfully with the support services offered and available to her to deal with

her alcohol misuse and emotional and psychological difficulties;

(iv) the evidence of significant risk of future neglect of the child if returned to the mothers care at this time.

I hope that the mother will be able to continue to support the child in his/her foster-care placement.

10. I am satisfied this decision is proportionate for the following reasons:

(i) the 2 years during which time the child has most recently been in care, and the mother’s lack of sufficient

progress to address her difficulties during this time;

(ii) the significant risk of the mother’s relapse into alcohol misuse and the impact this would have on the child should

he/she be returned to his/her mother’s care;

(iii) that 2 previous reunification plans have been implemented and have not succeeded and that it is in the child’s

best interests and welfare to remain in care.

However I do request that the CFA give consideration not just to the supports the mother may need but also consider how these

supports can be provided to her considering her particular psychological needs.

11. I approve the Care Plan and note the GALs approval also.

12. Having heard the evidence set out above I direct that access between the child and his/her mother be at the discretion of the

HSE pursuant to section 37 of the 1991 Act having considered:

(i) the supports needed by the child and the mother currently for access to be a positive experience;

(ii) the reports that access is currently proceeding at a frequency and pace that both the child and the mother can

manage well.

13. I excuse the GAL with costs to be paid by the HSE and measured in default of agreement.

14. Under section 47 of the 1991 Act I direct that the case is to be re-entered before the Court by the HSE & on notice to the

mother and to the GAL in the event that:

(i) a Social Worker/Fostering Link Worker becomes unallocated to the child/foster carers for a period of 6 weeks;

(ii) there is any planned or unplanned change of current foster placement of the child;

(iii) the statutory Child in Care Review for the child is not carried out for any reason, I direct that reunification

between the child and his/her mother is considered at each Child in Care Review as set out in the CFA/HSE

guidelines/regulations;

(iv) the long-term foster-care matching process is not completed within 16 weeks from the date of this order.

If the GAL in this case is no longer available then the HSE is to bring an application to the Court to have a GAL appointed pursuant to

section 26 of the 1991 Act.

15. I further direct that the child be allocated an After Care Worker within one month of his/her sixteenth birthday and that this

matter be returned to Court on one year after the child’s sixteenth birthday for the Court to assess his/her After Care Service needs.

The CFA is to provide the Court with a copy of the child’s Draft After Care Plan on that date, and the GAL is to be reappointed 6

weeks in advance of that hearing.

16. Review of progress in care on the in early 2015 and the GAL is to be reappointed in late 2014 in advance of that hearing.

17. Liberty to apply.

District Court Judge

The Children Court