Care Order granted for child due to mother's substance misuse and lack of consistent care.

[2016] IEDC 15

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

THE CHILD AND FAMILY AGENCY

APPLICANT

-AND-

MCA

FIRST NAMED RESPONDENT

THE CHILD CARE ACT, 1991- SECTION 18 (1)

IN THE MATTER OF A CHILD

[Note: This version of the original decision delivered is PREPARED for THE PURPOSE OF Publication. Any changes from to the original

are intended only to be as to form and not as to substance, AND ARE for the purpose of reducing the possibility of identification of

the children.]

INTRODUCTION

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. I direct that nothing be reported concerning this case which would serve to identify either the child who is the

subject matter of these proceedings or his mother, putative father or extended family.

2. The respondent mother was not present in the proceedings, however, she was represented in the proceedings by her solicitor

under the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995. I am satisfied that the mother is fully aware of the hearing and the nature of the Orders being

sought by the Child and Family Agency.

3. The putative father of the child is not a legal Guardian and was not named as a party in the proceedings. He has never participated

in the life of the child and is said to have never resided in this jurisdiction.

4. The child’s separate interests in the proceedings were highlighted by the Guardian Ad Litem who was represented by her solicitor.

The Guardian Ad Litem is satisfied with the Care Plan proposed for the child and recommends that the Care Order be granted until the

child reaches majority.

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

BACKGROUND

6. The mother is a vulnerable person who was brought to the attention of the Child and Family Agency, Tusla [hereinafter calledtThe

Agency] as a result of a referral from the maternity hospital social work department. The referral was made because of the mother’s

heroin use during pregnancy and because of her homelessness and vulnerability. The child was born prematurely and required medical

treatment. A pre-discharge meeting was convened before the mother and baby were discharged from the hospital. The decision

reached was that the mother would care for the child and be allocated a large room in a hostel with the benefit of ‘family support’

intervention to be provided by the Agency and visits by both the Public Health Nurse and a key-worker from the addiction service she

attended. A number of days later the child was admitted to another hospital having sustained a fractured skull. There was evidence

or suggestion of non-accidental injury.

7. The child came into the voluntary care of the Agency at this time and several weeks later was returned to the care of his mother

who was participating in a residential detoxification programme. The Agency devised a Child Protection Plan to support the mother in

the care of her child who remained with her in the Unit for approximately one year. The mother was then discharged to supported

accommodation attached to the residential unit. In this period the child sustained another head injury requiring hospital admission

however that injury was not reported to medical social work at the time. Again there was no evidence or suggestion of non-

accidental injury.

8. On her discharge from the step down community house the mother did not have stable accommodation and so entered the

homelessness services. The mother made a private arrangement with a friend to enable her to gain firmer traction on addiction issues.

The private arrangement lasted for almost one year but then ceased. Unfortunately, the mother was unable to sustain a drug free life

and failed to engage with the social work department and so signed a voluntary care agreement with the Agency allowing them to

care for the child who was at the age of seventeen months old. The mother extended the voluntary care agreement on two

occasions during the following two years. When the Agency could not contact the mother they applied to Court seeking an Interim

Care Order which was made on the basis that the child’s health development and welfare was likely to be avoidably impaired or

neglected if he was removed from his placement. That Order has been extended from time to time until the hearing of the application

for a Care Order. The child has remained in the same placement for the last two and a half years.

FACTS

9. The evidence of the allocated social worker was that the mother was a vulnerable person who had a child taken into care in

another jurisdiction and then freed for adoption. The mother also mourned the loss of this child. Every effort was made by the Social

Work Department to support her in the care of the child, but over time she began to disengage with services and made an

arrangement with a friend to care for the child when she became homeless. The private arrangement became unsustainable in tandem

with the mother’s further descent into a chaotic lifestyle. The child then came into voluntary care pursuant to section 4 of the 1991

Act and has remained stable in the foster placement ever since. Efforts were made by the previously allocated social worker to

engage the mother and offer her services, however, she was un-contactable for long periods.

10. The mother attended the Court when the first Interim Care Order was sought by the Agency. However, her engagement with the

social work department was limited to her court appearances as she failed to keep scheduled appointments with the social worker or

attend access with the child.

11. Due to inconsistency in access attendance a decision was taken to suspend access unless the mother could establish that she

would in fact come to access at the appointed time. The mother had missed two prearranged access visits with her child. The

expectations of the Agency around access consistency was explained, and the importance for the child of consistency. The Agency

suspended access until consistency could be demonstrated by the mother in the child’s best interests. The Agency committed to

reinstate the access if the mother contacted the social work department at a specific time on four consecutive Mondays. The rational

for this requirement as evidenced by the social worker was to establish that the mother had the capacity to be consistent and to

prioritise access. An access worker was identified who would work with the mother to facilitate access and an “access plan” was put

in place to assure the mother and to identify the components necessary to put access back on track. Unfortunately, only one phone

call was made by the mother.

12. The recently allocated social worker made many efforts to contact the mother at the addiction services she had last attended to

find that she had not attended there for some time, at sundry homeless services and was successful ultimately to locate the mother

in a hospital. The mother remained homeless, vulnerable and was living a chaotic life without the benefit of a personal telephone. She

also met with the mother two months ago as the mother came to Court when an application for an extension of the Interim Care

Order was before the Court. The social worker made an appointment with the mother to further encourage participation in a Child in

Care Review meeting and to discuss access, however, the mother failed to come to the appointment. The Social Worker again made

every effort to contact the mother, but she could not be located.

13. The Guardian ad Litem stated that the child was ‘unresponsive’ when he came into care. It was her professional opinion that the

child’s early life was marked by attachment disruption, insecurity and loss. She described the child as now being active with speech

and language and occupational therapy needs. In her opinion, he is well placed with a foster carer who is devoted to him and

described his behavioural issues as “quirks” and accepts them as his way of being. While the child cannot articulate his views, wishes

and feelings due to his age and level of maturity he is content in his placement which is meeting all of his many needs. The Guardian’s

opinion was that at this time his emotional needs require full time attention from his foster carer and that he is challenged by even a

temporary change within this foster family. The Guardian’s evidence was that she also had difficulty contacting the mother. She

described the mother as a nice, polite and vulnerable woman without protection or security living a chaotic life with a history of

substance misuse. It was her professional view that the child has not been cared for by his mother for over three years. He has spent

three quarters of his life with alternative carers. She supported the making of a Care Order until the child attained the age of eighteen

years because of his history of care to date and the non engagement of his mother in circumstances where she herself has a high

level of vulnerability. The Guardian was also satisfied with the Care Plan.

FINDINGS

14. I accept the evidence of the Social Worker and Social Work Team Leader; the recently allocated Social Worker; and the Guardian

ad Litem that the child’s health development and welfare would be avoidably impaired or neglected were he to be removed from his

current placement.

15. The vulnerability of the mother was identified before she gave birth and the child’s vulnerability known from the date of his birth.

Professional decisions were taken to support the child in the care of his mother during his infancy. The subsequent professional

judgment did not interfere with the mother’s arrangements to place in a private arrangement with a friend. When this placement

ended the child came into the voluntary care of the Agency in accordance with section 4 of the 1991 Act and subject to the

provisions of the Child in Care (Placement of Children in Foster Care) Regulations 1995. These Regulations require inter alia that a

foster placement assessment is undertaken in advance of a child’s placement, that case records are maintained and the child has a

Care Plan setting out the aims and objectives of the placement, the supports to be provided for the child, the foster parents, and

where appropriate the parents of the child, the arrangements for access and the arrangements for review of the plan. The parent/

guardian and the foster parent are entitled to receive a copy of the plan.

16. An Interim Care Order was sought and granted several months before the hearing of these proceedings. The Guardian attended

both Statutory Child in Care Reviews in the period before the hearing and also visited the child in his placement each month and

observed his interactions within the foster family and visited his pre-school and observed his play as well as meeting with his

teachers.

17. I make the Care Order in this case pursuant to section 18(1) (c) of the 1991 Act on the evidence adduced.

18. I am satisfied on the evidence that the Care Order for the child, in this case, should be until he reaches their age of majority at

18 years. I believe that this duration is proportionate on the evidence and having regard to the following:

• The mother has not exercised day to day care of the child in three years;

• The mother has not been able to maintain consistent access with the child;

• The mother is a vulnerable person, has no fixed abode and a history of substance misuse;

• The child is vulnerability requires consistency in care and stability.

SECTION 37 ACCESS

19. Having heard the evidence set out above and having reached the issues of fact enunciated above I direct that access should be

at the discretion of the Agency in accordance with section 37 of the 1991 Act.

SECTION 47 DIRECTIONS

A. Under section 47 of the 1991 Act I direct that the case is to be re-entered before the Court by the Agency (on notice to

and automatic re-appointment of the Guardian Ad Litem) in the following events:

(i) the case becomes unallocated to social worker for a period of four weeks;

(ii) the case becomes unallocated to a fostering link worker for a period of six weeks;

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

(iv) the child’s current foster placement breaks down or the Agency seek to change the current foster placement.

B. I direct that the case is to be re-entered before the Court by the Agency (on notice to and automatic re-appointment of the

Guardian Ad Litem) in the following events:

(i) That the child’s Assessment of Needs is not completed within four months of the date of this Order;

(ii) That the current foster placement is not matched as his long term placement within four months of the date of

this Order.

C. The case is to be re-entered before the Court by the Agency (on notice to the Guardian Ad Litem) for the purposes of After

Care Review and consideration of a Draft After Care Plan on the nearest court date to the child’s sixteenth birthday should the

child remain in the care of the Agency at that time.

D. The Guardian Ad Litem is to be re-appointed six weeks before the date of re-entry.

E. If the Guardian Ad Litem in this case is no longer available at that time then the Child and Family Agency is to bring an

application to the Court pursuant to section 23 of the 1991 Act for the purposes of having a Guardian Ad Litem appointed.

F. The Agency to continue in their efforts to locate the mother and should she wish to engage. That the Agency drafts a child

centred Access Plan to meet the objectives of section 37 of the 1991 Act.

G. The Agency to provide the child with all necessary services to address his identified needs as set out in the Report of the

Guardian Ad Litem and as identified by the Assessment of Needs. The Agency to provide all appropriate services as necessary

to address the child’s identity issues at an age appropriate stage of his development.

Rosemary Horgan

District Court Judge