Court grants proportionality care order for three children with directions for parental support and future review.

[2014] IEDC 06

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

TUSLA CHILD AND FAMILY AGENCY (The Agency)

APPLICANT

AND

CG

FIRST NAMED RESPONDENT

AND

JB

SECOND NAMED RESPONDENT

Child Care Act 1991 – Section 18 (1)

CARE ORDER (Proportionality)

In the matter of: Child 1, 2 and 3 (Children)

29th May 2014

1. This is an application by Tulsa Child and Family Agency (CFA) for a Care Order in respect of three children who are aged four and a

half years, two years and seven months and one year and seven months respectively and will be referred to throughout this decision

as Child 1, 2 and 3 as nothing must be reported concerning this case which would serve to identify any of the children or the parents

who are the subject of these proceedings.

2. The children’s parents are unmarried and live together in a committed relationship which has not been without difficulties. The

mother and father are 22 years old and the father younger by a few months. Both parents were the subject of child protection

concerns as minors. The father received after care services having been a child in care of the Health Service Executive (HSE) – now

the CFA.

3. Child 1 is not the biological child of the father. The biological father of Child 1 has not been identified by the mother. Child 1

regards B as his/her father and so he will be described as father in this decision. Child 2 and 3 are the biological children of the mother

and father.

4. Each parent was separately represented in these proceedings.

5. The children’s interests were brought to the attention of the Court by the Guardian ad Litem.

BRIEF OVERVIEW

6. The three children were received into the voluntary care of the Agency in December 2012 and placed in kinship care and an Interim

Care Order sought on that date was withdrawn in light of the voluntary care arrangement. The parents later withdrew their consent

to the voluntary kinship placement. The reunification of children with the parents was a recommendation of the Social Work

Department at the Child Protection Notification Conference also and the children were returned in February 2013. The return was

short lived however and the children subsequently returned to the care of the kinship carers. An Interim Care Order was ultimately

sought and granted in April 2013 and has been extended on eight occasions since that date. The application for a Care Order was

heard over two days in May 2014.

7. From the outset of the proceedings the parents through their legal representatives indicated their consent to the making of a Care

Order for a period of two years. This duration was acknowledged by them to be necessary to enable them to gain traction on their

poly substance addiction issues and overcome their homelessness issues. It was submitted that they had, albeit in recent times,

gained some insight into the nature of their turbulent inter personal relationship and with substances abuse issues and the effect of

their inconsistent lifestyle on their children. The Court was advised that they each wanted to turn their lives around and provide a

consistent stable family unit for all three children. The Court was also informed that they were awaiting the birth of a fourth child.

8. The Agency sought a Care Order in respect of all three children until they attain the age of eighteen years. The rationale for the

duration of the Order for this period was stated as being necessary to provide long term security for the children in their Agency

approved kinship placement with the maternal grandparents. Child 1 in particular, and Child 2 to a lesser extent, experienced multiple

moves of kinship carers during formative periods of their lives and they now needed to settle.

9. The Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) supported the application by the Agency for a Care Order in respect of the three children until they

attained the age of eighteen years. In the Guardian’s view Child 1 was particularly vulnerable. Her investigations established that

he/she had been assessed by the Agency as functioning within the low average range of ability. It was also reported that Child 1

displayed emerging symptoms of attention deficit difficulties, impulsive behaviour and was reported to be unable to regulate his/her

emotions at times. He/she experienced episodes of enuresis. Arising from those concerns Child 1 was referred to a Psychologist. This

referral was to ascertain his/her needs under the Disability Act 2005. The Report was not admitted into evidence without formal proof

and the psychologist was not called to give evidence. The Guardian noted that neither of Child 1’s teachers expressed concerns in

relation to his/her development and social skills. A speech and language assessment equally found that he/she had no speech sound

issues, though he/she had difficulties in listening to and processing instructions spoken without opportunity for repetition.

10. The Guardian did not directly canvass Child 1’s wishes and feelings given the number of professionals involved in his/her life and

given his/her young age. She expressed the view that it was important to ensure Child 1 achieved emotional safety and could make

sense of his/her childhood as he/she moved within a kinship group of carers due to his/her parents’ turbulent relationship and lifestyle

choices. Child 1’s overarching need, in her view, was for certainty and security. In her view Child 2 and Child 3 were less affected by

their parent’s lifestyle as they were able to enjoy consistency during a formative period in their developmental lives.

11. The ‘Summary Statement’ and outline of Proposed ‘Finding of Facts’ document grounding the Agency application and prepared in

accordance with the Court’s Practice Direction was not responded to by the parents legal representatives. No admissions were made

in respect of any of the documents set out in the Book of Reports provided to the Court save the Letter Reports of Dr K Consultant

Psychiatrist at Tabs 8, 18 and 20 which were admitted without necessity for formal proof and the Report of SR of the Youth Project

at tab 13 which was also admitted without formal proof. No other reports were admitted without formal proof.

12. The admitted report of Dr K dated January 2014 indicates that the mother has a diagnosis of poly substance misuse from early

adolescence and an emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD). The features of her EUPD are chronic unhappiness, recurrent

ideation/acts of deliberate self harm, fear of abandonment, mood swings and anger inappropriate to context. This diagnosis is

differentiated from a mental illness. The report recounts an improvement on all fronts in the context of her current pregnancy. This

positive position was maintained in the report letter of March 2014. Mother was noted to be engaging well with the Occupational

Therapist of the service. Though many appointments were missed, Dr K was not unhappy with the level of her engagement from a

clinical perspective, as she appeared to be abstaining from intoxicants and presenting well and he noted that he was encouraged by

her progress. The third letter of April 2014 provided the additional information that EUPD has no relevance per se on child care

decisions. People with this diagnosis may have parenting difficulties, but those are best judged on a case by case basis by the

relevant agency.

13. The Youth Project Report indicated that this group offered medical therapeutic social /educational supports to young people aged

21 and under who have a problem with drugs & alcohol. The father attended the group in February 2014 and began the evening

Programme. He progressed to the fulltime Programme in March 2014 and this involved twice weekly urine samples. The Youth Project

was satisfied with the father’s engagement and noted that the mother also wished to engage in the group.

14. I heard evidence from:

a) The Aftercare Worker to the father in support of the Report dated November 2013 and Updated Reports in

February 2014 and May 2014 at tabs 27;

b) The Team Leader of the Housing Project;

c) The Caretakers Case Manager with the Housing Project in support of the letter reports at tabs 15 and 21;

d) The Allocated Social Worker in support of reports at tabs 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 19, 22 and 26 and the Parenting

Assessment Report at tab 28;

e) The father; and

f) The Guardian Ad Litem.

15. The Aftercare Worker’s evidence was consistent with her role as the father’s after care worker while he was in the care of the

Agency. Her role focused on housing needs for the father until March 2013. She was also involved in procuring appropriate education

and training for the father as well as steering him towards a more regulated and substance free lifestyle. The impediments to

achieving stability included interpersonal relationship difficulties, as well as unsuitable and unstable housing linked to lifestyle choices,

immaturity, and poor impulse control. The evidence was that the father has engaged well with the service since the last quarter of

2013 and the Aftercare Worker said that she does not have the same level of concern for the parents now because she has an

honest and open professional relationship with the father. Her evidence was also that in October 2013 tensions were linked to

environmental issues which exacerbated stress and tension between the couple. In the last six months the Aftercare Worker noted an

improvement in functioning. The father was engaging with a Youth Project focused on abuse issues and also attending AA. He was

also engaged in education and training.

16. The Team Leader of the Housing Project gave evidence of the difficulties that arose between the parents and the Housing Project

between November 2012 and January 2013. The couple were provided with a three bedroom house on a supported campus with an

assigned key worker. This was a turbulent period in the parents’ relationship however and despite a good start interpersonal

difficulties ensued culminating in domestic violence between the parents which destabilized the placement. Only a brief period of

stabilization was achieved but it was acknowledged that the accommodation was always warm and well kept. There was always

sufficient food and when the children were not there the couple slept in late. The routine of parenting was supported by a child care

worker on an opportunistic basis but the parents engaged well and brought and collected their children on time. The children were

always happy to see their parents. Although January 2013 was a month of relative stability overall; the engagement by the parents

was inconsistent and unfortunately the placement broke down in February 2013. The Team Leader agreed that neither she nor her

Housing Project had any contact with the parents in the last fifteen months.

17. The Caretakers Case Manager with the Housing Project gave evidence of his engagement with the couple and noted that the

father had engaged with him on his own initiative. The father identified the areas for which he wanted his help namely, housing,

education and training courses, referral to drug treatment and urinalysis services. The Caretakers Case Manager created a care plan

for the parents and linked portions of the care plan to his own services and other parts to services provided by identified others. He

facilitated a referral to a Psychologist, who made an ongoing referral to a Consultant Psychiatrist. The Caretakers Case Manager was

not successful in securing a house for the couple, but they have remained stable in B&B accommodation for the last six months and

have fully engaged with all services offered to them.

18. The Allocated Social Worker gave evidence of her long standing relationship with the couple.

i. She recounted the efforts made to support the unit before the Agency took formal steps to apply to Court, she

emphasised it was a last option and she had been through several prior to that.

ii. The Allocated Social Worker also expressed concerns about the various kinship placement groupings experienced

by Child 1 in particular (with his/her maternal aunt for a period of months and with his/her maternal grand parents

from time to time and again since February 2013 with his/her maternal grand parents) when not living in the

turbulent care of his/her mother and father. The Allocated Social Worker was of the view that it is only since the

Care Order that Child 1 has experienced a secure base. It was her professional opinion that Child 1 has experienced

emotional harm through multiple kinship placements within the kinship family dictated by the parents presenting

needs rather than the children’s. It was her opinion that such random placements and displacements were inimical

to the welfare of the children.

iii. She expressed concern about the dynamic of the parental relationship and the effect on Child 1 of his/her being

exposed to domestic violence between his/her parents. On one occasion he/she was back with his/her parents for a

23 hour period before a violent altercation resulted in his/her return to his/her maternal grand parents in accordance

with an agreed Safety Plan. It was her opinion that Child 1 has experienced emotional harm by exposure to such

trauma.

iv. She also noted the inability of the parents to secure and maintain stable housing accommodation though she

was firm in her view that resolving the housing deficit was not a panacea for the resolution of the couple’s larger

problems.

v. The Allocated Social Worker gave evidence about difficulties experienced by each parent separately during their

respective adolescence. They each had a history of addiction though this currently seems to be under control; save

the longstanding cannabis use by the father which is ongoing. It was her assessment that the father is immature

and the mother has unresolved mental health concerns and suffers from a personality disorder which impedes

collectively their capacity to provide consistent parenting.

vi. It was her conclusion that while the parents have improved their overall functioning in recent months, that the

pattern of their engagement is that they begin well but progress quickly crumbles when the parents encounter the

stress of the full time care of the children and their own volatile interpersonal relationship.

vii. She stated that apart from a three month period during 2013 and some difficulty this year the parents availed of

access consistently with the children. Child 3 has not been cared for by the parents full time and Child 2 has spent

greater periods of time in kinship care than in the care of the parents; Child 1 enquires when he/she is going home.

She states that all the children are happy to see their parents at access.

viii. She expressed concern that the parents were hostile to her during February of this year and access had to be

suspended on one occasion due to their behaviour to her. It was conceded on cross examination however that

issues were raised during access which might have more properly been raised outside of access.

19. The Allocated Social Worker undertook a formal assessment of parental capacity with each parent using an instrument of

assessment devised by Jeff Fowler to determine the ability of the parents to parent in ‘good enough’ manner on a long term basis.

20. This parental capacity assessment was undertaken by the Allocated Social Worker during 8 interviews with each parent of some 2

hours duration per interview. It was her conclusion based on all the interviews and the collateral information available to her that

neither parent has the long term capacity to parent the children at this time.

21. Over the last 4.5 years it was her view the parents have each been provided with the supports necessary to enable them to

parent their children to an acceptable standard. Neither parent currently has the insight to understand the need for consistent

boundaries and routines to be established for the children by a primary caregiver in order to facilitate them developing a secure

attachment.

22. Since they came into kinship care they have security and stability, consistent boundaries and emotional warmth. They are

reaching their milestones and developing attachments.

23. The Allocated Social Worker was of the opinion that Child 1 in particular could not be exposed to further risk of emotional harm

and so required a long term order to allow him to settle in his/her placement.

24. The Allocated Social Worker conceded that the parents were slow to emerge from adolescence to develop some maturity. She

acknowledged that the mother was only sixteen years old when Child 1 was born. The father was in the care of the Health Service

Executive (now the CFA) and his experiences in care were not happy. She also conceded that the parents may develop insight into

their interpersonal and parental relationship and be motivated to engage in rehabilitation from polysubstance abuse. As adults they

have achieved a lot in the recent past however as the allocated social worker to the children she had to focus on the overarching

needs of the children. This was to have security and certainty, with a long term placement identified as meeting their needs in the

long term which was until they reach eighteen years. It was her evidence that the children could not wait forever for their parents to

parent them.

25. The father gave evidence that he understood the concerns of the Agency and of the Allocated Social Worker in particular. He and

the mother were prepared to consent to a Care Order for 2 years within which time they would continue on the path to recovery from

all substance abuse, and gain further skills and insight into the needs of each of their children. He was continuing with a CE scheme

and hoped to secure a trade which would provide a living for the family eventually. His evidence was that he and the mother also

worked towards a more acceptable dispute resolution style, and he acknowledged that they were both wrong to resort to domestic

violence and had not done so for some six months. He acknowledged that Child 1 had seen “an awful lot”. He also acknowledged that

Child 1 has tantrums but he did not feel that these were out of proportion to a child of his/her years. He believed that Child 1 is a fun

loving warm child who gets on well at school and loves to see his/her mother and father. He indicated that Child 1 will receive

services to remediate his/her experience of harm, and he and the mother fully support this. He noted that Child 2 and 3 are thriving

and clearly love them and acknowledge them as parents. Should he slip in any way in his path to recovery he would understand and

accept that the children should remain in care until they were each adults. However it was his wish to have the opportunity to

provide a family setting for all the children and wished the final opportunity to do so. The father set out his goals to be achieved in

the two year period which included ongoing engagement in anger management, continuing with the CE scheme and all courses offered

to him, and a parenting course. He also agreed that he would engage with mental health services and he acknowledged that he and

the mother had problems in their early years of parenting but they now wished to have the potential to achieve family reunification

after a two year Care Order expired.

26. The GAL appointed by the Court for the children gave evidence in support of her reports to Court as set out in the Booklet.

27. As stated the guardian supports the application by the Agency for a Care Order in respect of each of the children until they attain

the age of eighteen years. However she conceded that her views as to the duration of the Care Order might have been different in

the case of the younger two children if they were the only children in the family. She believed that Child 1 needed to be assured at

this time, in a child centred manner, that he/she would be staying where he/she was until he/she grew up so that he/she could put

down roots with some certainty. The Guardian indicated that Child 1 sometimes asked when he/she might be going home which

indicated that he/she was uncertain. She wished to be able to provide an honest child friendly answer for Child 1 to give him/her

certainty.

28. The guardian evidenced that a child with a secure attachment to a caring adult is better able to transfer that attachment to

another caring adult than a child with an insecure attachment. Where a child has multiple care givers however it was her view that

attachment is not very easily transferred. It was her opinion that a secure attachment is vital to a child’s emotional wellbeing and

mental health. She noted that Child 1 is now linked to a CAMHS service which has a psychologist attached to it who has a

background in attachment.

29. The guardian acknowledged that an attachment assessment had not been undertaken by any professionals in this case to assess

the quality of all three children’s attachment to the parents, and the kinship carers. Neither was there any assessment of the

attachment styles of the parents, or the grandparents.

30. Neither the Allocated Social Worker nor the guardian expressed any concerns about the skull fracture suffered by Child 1 in a fall

from the grandfather’s arms which has been acknowledged by all to be an accidental injury. The guardian expressed the opinion that

the grand parents were in their early fifties and well placed to meet the needs of developing children of these ages. She was of the

view that structured rather than unstructured access was more suited to the children’s needs.

31. The guardian stated that it was her practice to explain to a child when the Court makes a Care Order that they will remain in care

until they have grown up if the order is made until 18 years. Child 1 gets on well with his/her kinship foster carers who are also his/her

grand parents. He/she also gets on well with his/her mother and the father, as does Child 2 and Child 3. However the guardian felt

that Child 3’s primary attachment is to his/her kinship foster carers, his/her grand parents. The guardian indicated it was important to

give Child 1 and Child 2 a clear message that they will be staying where they are now until they grow up so as to allow them to settle

into this placement.

THE LEGAL POSITION

32. The relevant law to be applied is well established. In summary:

33. The burden of proof lies with the Agency and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

34. The evidential threshold to be established is a high one. Article 42.5 of the Constitution (pre amendment) confirms that the State

may only intervene to supply the place of a parent in “exceptional” situations where there has been parental failure. Any interference

considered necessary to protect the rights of the child must be implemented by appropriate means but always with due regard to the

natural and imprescriptible rights of the child. Of course it is necessary under the Constitution it is necessary to have regard to the

rights of the parents whether under the Constitution or otherwise; otherwise includes the European Convention of Human Rights and

the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

35. Section 18 (1) of the 1991 Act is the statutory expression of this Constitutional threshold and provides for the making of a Care

Order where:

(a) the child has been or is being assaulted, ill-treated, neglected or sexually abused, or

(b) the child's health, development or welfare has been or is being avoidably impaired or neglected, or

(c) the child's health, development or welfare is likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected,

Even where such circumstances have been established evidentially it is necessary for the Agency to establish that the child requires

care or protection which he/she is unlikely to receive unless the court makes an order under this section.

PROPORTIONALITY

36. Where the threshold for State Intervention has been reached the Court must then go on to consider the issue of the

proportionality of the Order granted.

37. Section 18(2) of the Act deals with the duration of a Care Order. The options open to the Court are to commit the child to the

care of the Agency for so long as he/she remains a child or alternatively for such shorter period as the Court may determine.

38. Where the Court makes an Order of limited duration it may, of its own motion or on the application of any person, extend the

operation of the order if the Court is satisfied that grounds for the making of a Care Order continue to exist with respect to the child.

39. I have received legal submissions from the Agency, parents and Guardian on the relevant Irish and European jurisprudence. The

Irish jurisprudence opened to the court included the decision of the Supreme Court in G v An Bord Uchtála [1980] IR 32 regarding the

natural rights of the child to bodily integrity and the right and opportunity to be reared with due regard to religious, moral, intellectual

and physical welfare. The Court was also referred to the case of Northern Area Health Board v An Bord Uchtála [2002] 4 IR 252 which

also involved the rights of the child where there was an unintentional failure of parental duty and it was necessary to prefer the rights

of the child over the natural mother to ensure the rights of the child in the circumstances. The Court was also referred to the case of

N & Anor. v HSE & Anor [2006] IESC 60 which involved a marital child and constitutional presumption of welfare in that context.

Applying this jurisprudence to the current situation it is clear that Child 1, Child 2 and Child 3 have natural rights as have their

parents.

40. It is clear that the Court must apply a proportionate test in determining the Order to be made in this case to assure the welfare

of the children; but it must go no further than is strictly necessary to assure the welfare of the children

41. The relevance of Article 8 of the European Convention has been emphasised in each submission.

42. The legitimate exceptions to Article 8(1) are set out in Article 8(2) and provide that there must be no interference by a public

authority with the exercise of the right to private and family life unless three particular conditions are fulfilled: namely that the

interference is ‘in accordance with the law’; that the interference is in pursuit of one of the legitimate aims defined in Art 8(2), e.g.,

the protection of the rights and freedoms of others (which encompasses the interests of the child), that the intervention must be

‘necessary in a democratic society’: i.e., the reasons given for the interference must be ‘relevant and sufficient’; and it must meet a

pressing social need and be proportionate to that need.

43. It is clear that the more far reaching and severe the interference proposed the stronger the reasons required to justify it.

44. The Court was also referred to the cases of Olsson v Sweden which emphasised that the ultimate aim when a child needs State

Care should be family reunification if possible with parents. The right to contact between a parent and child should not be gratuitously

interfered with but must be tempered where the welfare of the child requires. A legally permitted interference must pursue a

legitimate aim and be proportionate and necessary. The interests as well as the rights and freedoms of all concerned must be taken

into account but where contact with a child would harm the interests of a child, or interfere with the child’s Article 8 rights, then a

proportionate balance must be struck.

45. Johansen v Norway [1996] 23 EHRR 33 was also referred to and that emphasised the obligation to work towards reunification – as

swiftly as is possible while at the same time protecting the best interests of the child. However it was also emphasised that “[i]n

carrying out this balancing exercise, the Court will attach particular importance to the best interests of the child, which, depending on

their nature and seriousness, may override those of the parent”

46. The Court was referred to K and T v Finland [2001] 2FLR 707 emphasised that removal of the child from the parents must not be

done in such a way as to destroy the natural bond – the State must consider the long term prospects – there should not be a

presumption in favour of permanent separation, and the case of Haas v Germany [2004] ECHR 142 - where the Court emphasised the

obligation of State Parties to carefully assess risk before intervention and whenever emergency protective measures were deemed

necessary to calibrate the consequences of intervention on all parties and ensure that measures taken were proportionate to the risk.

47. Having heard the evidence adduced and the submissions received I conclude that on the balance of probabilities it has been

established by the Agency that the health, development and welfare of each of the children is likely to be avoidably impaired or

neglected if they were returned to the care of their parents at this time and that an Order under Section 18 (1) (c) of the Act of

1991 as amended is necessary to protect the interests of each child and I note that is consented to.

48. In considering the range of powers available to the Court I do not consider that a care order until each child attains the age of

eighteen years represents a proportionate or necessary means of achieving the welfare of the children under a Care Order in this

case. The observation of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of YC v the United Kingdom [55 EHRR 967] at page 2012

are particularly apposite where the Court emphasized that: "family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and ….

Everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate to 'rebuild' the family. It is not enough to show that a

child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing”.

49. There is no prejudice to the interests of the children or the parents by the Court making an Order of 2 years duration in this case

as the Court will consider the circumstances of the parents and children at the appropriate time before the expiration of this 2 year

Care Order. The Court may of its own motion extend the Order until each child is 18 years at that time should the circumstances of

the case so require. The Court may also consider whether a Supervision Order is the proportionate response at that time to ensure

the welfare of the children.

50. I am satisfied that this 2 year duration is proportionate in particular for the following reasons:

(a) The evidence of the father was compelling, the Aftercare Worker and the Caretaker Case Manager with the

Housing Project indicated that the parents have begun to engage with services offered to them. Each parent now

appears to be trying to come to terms with adulthood, and parenthood, and develop insight into their children’s

needs and parental engagement in the last six months in general terms is acknowledge by all to be very positive.

(b) The father has demonstrated in evidence his insight into the effect of past parental deficits on Child 1 and Child

2. He admitted that Child 1 was exposed to “an awful lot” including domestic violence between the parents,

parental substance misuse resulting in homelessness and inconsistent parenting. The father also indicates that he

and the mother are now motivated to make the necessary changes as they are developing some maturity and they

love the children and wish to parent them jointly and will avail of all necessary supports.

(c) The father has also acknowledged that should he not be able to maintain the current path he has embarked on

within a two year time frame - without a slip - that he would understand the need for a full Care Order in the best

interests of the children until they reach their majority.

(d) No expert evidence has been adduced as to the consequences of a child experiencing multiple attachment

figures within a close kinship group, or indeed the attachment styles and experiences within this particular kinship

group.

(e) These parents are young and each has experienced a difficult and unhappy early adolescence. Some reports in

the Booklet of Reports provided by the Agency refer to the existence of a cognitive assessment of the mother who

is also reported to have a difficult family history; however no evidence has been adduced in this regard.

(f) The couple is expecting a fourth child and wishes to provide a family unit for all of their children.

(g) I am further satisfied that the Agency and the Guardian can formulate an appropriate child appropriate narrative

for the child 1 having regard to his/her chronological age of 4.5 years which assures him that he/she will be

remaining in his/her current placement for as long as necessary.

SECTION 37 ACCESS

51. Having heard the evidence set out above I make the Order for that duration and I direct that access between the parents and

the children should be in accordance with Section 37 of the 1991 Act. I must state that the parents’ relationship with the Agency

Allocated Social Worker has been entirely inappropriate at times and it is vital that the parents learn to develop a professional and

respectful relationship with the Agency. Equally it is important that the Agency reserve access visits for child centered dialogue only,

reserving separate meetings to iron out perceived difficulties at a different time and venue. If a mutually acceptable access

arrangement cannot be resolved by agreement both parties may apply to this court for an Order under Section 37.

SECTION 47 DIRECTIONS

52. I direct that this case is re-entered before the Court (on notice to the Guardian Ad Litem) on a specified date in late 2015 to

assess: (a) the progress made by each parent in terms of addressing the concerns identified as impediments to their parenting

capacity; (b) their engagement with the Agency and with such services as are provided by the Agency to them; (c) their attendance

at access with the children; and (d) to consider the needs of the parents and the children and to extend the Care Order now made in

this case until each child is eighteen years or otherwise.

53. The Agency is directed to provide each parent with all supports identified as necessary to assist each of them acquiring sufficient

parenting capacity to parent their children, or to link them with such services deemed necessary but which are not within the remit of

the Agency.

54. I direct that the Agency provide Child 1 and Child 2 with all necessary remedial and therapeutic services as identified in the GAL

Report and Care Plans for Child 1 and for Child 2.

55. I direct that the Agency provide the approved foster carers with all supports necessary to support them in their role as kinship

foster carers having regard to the identified needs of Child 1 and Child 2.

56. I direct that the case is to be re-entered before the Court by the Agency (on notice to the GAL) in the event that:

(a) The case becomes unallocated to social worker or fostering link worker for a period of four weeks;

(b) If the Agency (for any reason) failure to adhere to the statutory Care Planning regulations;

(c) Should the current foster placements break down; or should the Agency seek to change the placement for any

reason.

57. The GAL is to be re-appointed six weeks before the date of re-entry.

58. If the GAL in this case is no longer available at that time then the CFA is to bring an application to the Court pursuant to Section

23 of the 1991 Act for the purposes of having a GAL appointed.

59. Nothing is to be reported or broadcast regarding this case which would lead members of the public to identify any of the children

or any of the parties involved in the proceedings.

60. Great credit has to go to the social workers who have tried so hard in this case and great credit has to go to the honesty of the

father when he gave evidence.

61. Application for costs to stand adjourned generally with liberty to re-enter.

District Court Judge