District Court grants care order under Child Care Act 1991 s.18 for child at risk due to parental neglect and drug misuse.

[2014] IEDC 09

The District Court

The Child and Family Agency

Applicant

-AND-

SH

Respondent

and

SMcG

Respondent

Child Care Act 1991 – Section 18

in the matter of Child S, a child.

5 March 2014

1. The Child and Family Agency (the CFA) has made an application for a care order in respect of Child S.

2. I am satisfied the respondents have been properly served with notice of these proceedings and that the Court has jurisdiction to

hear this application.

3. The applicant was legally represented in these proceedings.

4. On the day of the hearing neither respondent was present in court, having returned to [a neighbouring jurisdiction] in December

2013. Both respondents were legally represented; however their legal representatives were not instructed for the purpose of this

application.

5. The interests of the child, the subject of these proceedings, was represented by the court appointed Guardian ad Litem (GAL),

Miss CD, who was represented by Mr BB..

Background

6. The background to this case can be set out as follows. The family has been known to the CFA social work department since July

2012. At that time the Agency was notified of child protection concerns regarding the respondent mother’s unborn child, Child S, from

[a neighbouring jurisdiction’s] social work services. The respondent parents had been living in [a city in that jurisdiction] up until July

2012. Their first child, a full sibling of Child S, was born there in early 2008. Prior to the birth of their first child the social services [in

that jurisdiction] conducted a pre-birth assessment and case conference and a care plan was put in place for that child. However

despite this the social services [in that jurisdiction] remained concerned for that child’s failure to thrive and the neglect of that child

in the care of the respondent parents. They assessed a risk of imminent harm to that child which resulted in a child protection order

being granted in August 2008. A specialist parenting assessment was carried out which concluded the respondent parents did not

have the capacity to parent that child due to their poly-drug misuse, domestic assaults, their offending behaviour and their lack of

engagement with services and supports. This assessment determined that child should not be returned to his/her parents care and

should be placed for adoption. An adoption order has since been made in respect of that child in the [courts of that jurisdiction].

7. A pre-birth case conference was held in respect of the respondent mother’s second pregnancy in [the city in that neighbouring

jurisdiction which the respondent parents resided] in July 2012. The decision taken at that conference was for the then unborn baby

(Child S, the child the subject of these proceedings) to be placed on the child protection register there. It appears that subsequent

to this decision of the social services in [that neighbouring jurisdiction] the respondent parents made the decision to relocate to [a

city here in Ireland] before the birth of their child, Child S. The respondent mother is herself Irish and has family in [two cities in

Ireland].

8. On their removal to Ireland neither parent could be considered to be stable on methadone treatment and admitted using opiates

prior to coming to Ireland and while attending for drug treatment in a city here in Ireland. A pre-birth case conference meeting was

held in August 2012 which determined the likely risk to Child S to be high. The reasons for determining this risk were the parent’s drug

use and the respondent mother’s opiate use during pregnancy, the parents did not appear to be genuinely cooperating with the social

work department and therefore it was determined necessary to bring an application to remove Child S into care shortly after his/her

birth.

9. Child S was born in September 2012 and an interim care order was sought and granted in September 2012. Child S was received

into the care of the Child and Family Agency and has remained in foster care since that date.

Decision

10. I have heard the evidence of Miss COR, the allocated social worker of the professional social work assessment of the respondent

parents. The conclusions of the social work assessment may be summarised as follows; the social work department has not seen a

significant improvement in the parents’ commitment to address the issues which might lead to Child S being returned to their care,

they have not affected positive change in their life and would be unable to provide a safe and protective environment for Child S. The

social work department has identified the risk factors present which are likely to impact on the parenting of Child S to include their

drug misuse, homelessness, criminality, the dynamic of their relationship, domestic violence and the parents assessed personality

disorders. The social worker’s evidence is that the respondent parents have greatly minimised the events leading to Child S being

placed in care and continue to refuse to accept any responsibility for their part in this decision; neither do they appear to have any

insights with regard to their behaviour which suggests they will have difficulty affecting positive change in their lifestyles into the

future. It is the professional opinion given in evidence by the social worker on behalf of the social work department that the

respondent parents pose a significant risk to the health, development and welfare of Child S should he/she be returned to their care

and that Child S’s health development and welfare is likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected should he/she be returned to the

care of his/her parents.

11. The evidence of the social worker acknowledges that since Child S’s reception into care the respondent parents have

demonstrated a commitment to attending access on a regular basis up to late 2013. However, the parent’s decision to leave Ireland

to return to live in [the neighbouring jurisdiction] and their lack of request for access with their child before they left the country is of

notable concern.

12. The social worker has also given evidence of the various supports offered to the respondent parents including drug treatment,

advice on dealing with homelessness, psychological assessments, and referral to key working services for the respondent mother to

assist her in developing life skills, greater independence and emotional support.

13. I have heard the evidence of Dr Q, GP at the addiction service attended by the respondent parents. Overall he described the

parents’ engagement as being relatively good and noted that while receiving methadone treatment they did occasionally appear to be

misusing drugs, but their drug misuse did not appear to be chaotic. However he did note their engagement with the service

disimproved in November 2013. He noted the parents were attending for methadone maintenance rather than rehabilitation and agreed

that on the balance of probabilities they were regularly misusing non-prescribed drugs.

14. I have heard the evidence of Dr C, clinical psychologist of the full forensic clinical psychological assessment she carried out on

each of the respondent parents on which she formed her opinion on their capacity to parent. She noted the respondent mother

engaged fully and frankly with her assessment but noted the respondent father did not engage with the assessment in a manner

which suggested he treated the assessment with priority. Dr C gave evidence of updating her report by way of a desktop review in

January 2014. She identified various risk and protective factors for each parent. The factors I have determined to be of most

relevance in my decision I will now set out.

15. She assessed the respondent father as having a severe addiction with recent deterioration, an antisocial personality disorder with

narcissistic and psychopathic features and a propensity to criminality, a need to dominate in relationships, and she noted dishonesty

in his dealings with other people. She also noted various protective factors in the respondent father’s psychological make up including

his normal intelligence, his having achieved second level education, his daily living skills and computer skills, his normal attachment and

happy childhood until age 11 and contact with his father and extended family. However her prognosis with regards to the respondent

father is that while he has demonstrated a capacity to provide adequate basic care for Child S, in her opinion he has not

demonstrated the capacity to do so consistently and she noted this is primarily because of his ongoing drug misuse and that this is

also related to his diagnosed underlying personality disorder. She suggests that access between the respondent father and Child S

should continue to take place only in a highly structured and supervised context. She noted in her updated report that there was no

evidence of change and noted an increase in risk.

16. With regard to the respondent mother Dr C assessed her as also having a severe addiction, a cognitive impairment, a propensity

to shoplift or respond aggressively, and an immaturely developed personality disorder. The protective factors she identified for the

respondent mother included her love for Child S, her courage in talking frankly, her naturally sociable and chatty personality, her

conscience, and her experience of support. Dr C assessed the prognosis for reunification of Child S with his/her mother solely, and

also the reunification of Child S with his/her mother and father. She noted in the event the respondent mother decides to parent Child

S alone that she believes a stepped programme towards reunification could begin, if it could be clearly established the mother has

made the transition to single status without any cause for concern for her ongoing stability and that adequate treatment and support

was in place for her. Dr C noted that should the mother be considered to be reunified with Child S in partnership with the respondent

father; the respondent father’s capacity should be the determining factor. She noted from her updated review in January 2014 that

there would not be a realistic probability of reunification as the respondent parents continue to present as a couple for consideration

of reunification.

17. I have heard the evidence of Garda L of the previous convictions of the respondent mother and father which included various road

traffic offences, various theft and fraud offences, possession and supply of drugs, and domestic abuse by the respondent father.

18. I have also heard the evidence from Miss CD the court appointed Guardian ad Litem. She acknowledged the respondent mother

demonstrated great love for Child S and also acknowledged the overall high level of attendance by both parents at access. She noted

the parents were appropriate in their concerns for Child S when they were deciding to return to reside in [the neighbouring

jurisdiction] in November 2013. The Guardian noted that Child S is doing well in his/her current placement, which is a stable

placement, and that Child S has a strong sense of belonging in that foster family. The Guardian has expressed some concern that the

age of Child S’s foster family, who are in their mid-50s, may adversely affect their assessment and long-term matching to Child S. The

Guardian has also noted that should the respondent mother continue to reside in [the neighbouring jurisdiction] she will need someone

to accompany her to access visits in Ireland and suggests the foster family of Child S should be part of this access plan between

Child S and his/her mother. The Guardian assesses the risk of abduction of Child S by the respondent father as high given his level of

unpredictability. The Guardian noted that Child S has a full sibling who has been adopted in [the neighbouring jurisdiction] and

recommends some contact between Child S and his/her sibling. The Guardian recommends that a clear plan for access between Child

S and his/her parents, his/her sibling, and life story should begin as soon as possible for Child S. The Guardian also suggests that

consideration needs to be given by the social work department to the supports that can be offered to the parents while they reside in

[the neighbouring jurisdiction].

19. Having heard the evidence I am satisfied to make the following findings. I find the parents have an ongoing and severe drug

addiction which they have not addressed to a sufficient degree to allow them to provide adequate care to their child. While I accept

that Dr Q did not find them to be chaotic in their presentation, I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence of Dr C, that their

psychological make up to a significant extent allowed them to mask their true drug use and the effect of this on their ability to

provide adequate parenting to Child S.

20. I accept the diagnosis of Dr C regarding the respondent father’s underlying personality disorder and her assessment that he has

not demonstrated a consistent capacity to parent Child S. As the respondent mother has not put forward her case for parenting Child

S alone I must also accept Dr C’s conclusion that the respondent father’s capacity to parent the child should be the determining

factor as he is the dominant member of the couple. Therefore I must conclude that the parents do not at this time have the capacity

to provide adequate care for their child and that the risk of reunification between the parents and the child is too great for

reunification to occur at this time.

21. I must also conclude that the parents have minimised the events that led to their child being placed in care and that they have

not accepted responsibility for their actions. I must also conclude that there decision to return to live in [the neighbouring

jurisdiction] in December 2013, their abrupt cessation of access with their child, and the fact the parents did not request access with

Child S prior to their departure demonstrates that they do not have sufficient insight with regards to the impact of their behaviour on

their child.

22. Having made these findings and considered the welfare interests of Child S expressed to the Court by the Guardian ad Litem, Child

S being to young to express his/her wishes, I am satisfied the threshold criteria under section 18(1)(c) of the Child Care Act 1991 has

been met as Child S’s health, development and welfare is likely to be avoidably impaired and neglected should he/she be returned to

the care of his/her parents and that he/she requires care and protection which he/she is unlikely to receive unless I make an order for

his/her ongoing care. The duration of the order shall be until Child S reaches the age of majority at age 18 and will expire in

September 2030. I am satisfied that this decision is proportionate having considered the supports that have been put in place for the

respondent parents since Child S’s reception into care, the parents lack of meaningful engagement with supports to allow them to

adequately parent Child S now or in the foreseeable future and that a realistic timeframe cannot at this juncture be put on possible

reunification between Child S and his/her parents.

Section 47

23. Pursuant to section 47 of the Child Care Act 1991 I will make the following directions in the interests of the welfare of Child S:

A. That this case is to be re-entered before the Court by the Agency and on notice to the parents and the

Guardian in the event that this case becomes unallocated to a designated Social Worker/Fostering Link Worker for a

period of 8 weeks;

B. That this case is to be re-entered before the Court by the Agency and on notice to the parents and the

Guardian if the long-term foster care matching process is not carried out for Child S within 12 weeks from the date

of this order or in the event any planned or unplanned change of current foster placement for Child S. While I am

satisfied on the evidence that Child S is best placed in his/her current foster placement and that his/her primary

attachment is to his/her foster-carers, consideration must be given to the fact that his/her parents and sibling now

reside in [the neighbouring jurisdiction]. Therefore I further direct that if there is any planned or unplanned change

of the current foster placement for Child S that consideration is given to the placement of Child S with his/her

sibling in [the neighbouring jurisdiction];

C. That this case is to be re-entered before the Court by the Agency and on notice to the parents and the

Guardian if the statutory child in care reviews for Child S are not carried out for any reason;

D. That this case to be listed for a review of progress in care in March 2015 and the Guardian reappointed 6 weeks

in advance;

E. That if the Guardian in this case is no longer available then the Agency is to bring an application to the Court to

have a Guardian appointed pursuant to section 23 of the Child Care Act 1991;

F. That after care planning for Child S is to begin, and an after care worker is to be allocated to him/her, within 1

month of his/her 16th birthday in September 2028, and that this matter is to be re-entered before this Court in

September 2029 to assess his/her after care service needs and that a draft after care plan is to be submitted to

the Court on that date.

Section 37

24. I further direct the agency to provide reasonable access between Child S and his/her parents pursuant to section 37 of the Child

Care Act 1991 and in considering the Agency are to in particular pay attention to the parents history of commitment to access with

Child S, the parents love and affection for Child S, the respondent mother’s particular needs to assist her in travelling from [the

neighbouring jurisdiction] for access, the respondent father’s assessed high risk of abduction of Child S given his levels of

unpredictability, the respondent mother’s inability to protect Child S should she remain under the dominant influence of the respondent

father, and Dr C’s recommendation that access continue to be a highly supervised and structured environment. I also direct the

Agency to take all necessary steps to consider a plan for access between Child S and his/her sibling who has been adopted in [the

neighbouring jurisdiction].

25. I approve the care plan as submitted by the Agency and note the Guardian’s approval also.

26. I discharge the Guardian with her costs to be paid by the applicant and measured in default.

27. I reserve the respondent’s application for costs until May 2014.

26. I grant liberty to apply.

Colin Daly

District Court Judge