District Court grants full care order to Child and Family Agency for child's welfare and safety.

[2016] IEDC 17

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

THE CHILD AND FAMILY AGENCY

APPLICANT

-AND-

AB

RESPONDENT

IN THE MATTER OF CD

1. This case was an application by the Child and Family Agency for a Care Order pursuant to the provisions of section 18 (1) (a), (b)

and (c) of the Child Care Act 1991 for the full duration of the child's minority. The child, the subject of these proceedings, was born in

this jurisdiction and is resident in this State. The respondent mother is the only named respondent. The father of the child is not

named on the child's birth certificate, and the evidence to the Court is that the father has had no involvement whatsoever in the

child's life.

2. The Child and Family Agency and the respondent mother were legally represented in these proceedings. An independent Guardian

Ad Litem was appointed by the Court in the context of section 18 and section 17 interim care order applications. The Guardian was

appointed in 2013 to represent the wishes and the voice of the child and to speak to the welfare of the child in these proceedings.

The Guardian Ad Litem was also legally represented.

3. The application pursuant to section 18 began hearing in 2016 and was heard over fourteen full days of hearing. The hearing was

protracted by agreement of the parties because it necessitated everyone being available and the Court being available on resumed

hearing dates that were convenient and suitable for everyone. Seven booklets including reports, notices, documents and orders were

lodged to the Court on notice to the respondent mother and the Guardian Ad Litem. Eleven interviews of the child were conducted by

An Garda Síochána and a Statutory Child Sexual Abuse Unit (SCSAA Unit); these were recorded on DVDs and were viewed by the

Court and on notice to the parties.

4. The case by the Agency alleges physical abuse, neglect, emotional abuse and sexual abuse having occurred with several males

whilst in the care of the respondent mother up to 2012. The case by the Agency alleges that the respondent mother facilitated the

sexual abuse of the child, either knowingly and/or wilfully or recklessly and facilitated in its occurrence by actual engagement in

enabling same on at least two occasions, and by administering drugs to the infant preliminary to instance of abuse and having the

child participate in the creation of pornographic material.

5. At the outset of the proceedings, all parties agreed that the Child Care Law Reporting Project, independently funded by the

Department of Children and Youth Affairs, and established under section 3 of the Childcare Amendment Act 2007 to examine and

report on child care proceedings could be present. An initial order was made on the first day of the hearing in 2016. It was agreed

that this order was required to safeguard the welfare of the child and family. It was applied for by the Agency under section 47 of the

Act, and it was consented to by all parties.

6. An order pursuant to section 29 of the Child Care Act 1991 as amended by section 3 of the Child Care (Amendment) Act 2007

directing the prohibition of any publication or broadcasting of any evidence given or referred to during the proceedings, or any part of

such evidence. Such prohibition shall not apply to the Child Law Reporting Project. Such prohibition may be lifted on application to the

Court on notice to all parties. A direction that the report of these proceedings by the Child Law Reporting Project shall be preceded

by the statement as follows; no details of this case, including this report of the Child Law Reporting Project can be republished by any

media organisations without an application to the District Court in Dublin on notice to the Child and Family Agency, by order of the

District Court.

7. As a preliminary matter, this Court was asked to make a determination on the admission of hearsay statements made by the child

to professionals and third parties including a foster mother. This application was made pursuant to section 23 of the Children Act 1997

and a determination was made in the following terms on an initial basis. A typed version of the determination was furnished at that

time which stated that;

"The proceedings must be conducted in a fair manner as set out in the European Convention on Human Rights at Article

6. Proceedings overall must be fair, and the Court is being asked to make a preliminary ruling under section 23(1) (a)

and (b) of the Children Act 1997 to admit hearsay evidence of the child in accordance with the provisions of the said

sections. Based on the sworn evidence of the social worker and the Guardian Ad Litem, the latter appointed by the Court

to speak to the wishes and welfare of the child, and no other evidence having been given, and written submissions

having been received from all parties, all evidence was to the effect that the child is competent to give evidence, but

that the giving of evidence by the child either in person or under section 21 of the 1997 Children Act by live TV link,

recorded and with the use of an intermediary, would be detrimental to the child's welfare at this time, and the

relationship of the child with the respondent mother. The determination of this Court at that time was that the hearsay

evidence of the child can be admitted as the provisions of section 23, subsection 1(b) of the 1997 Act have been

satisfied on the sworn evidence presented to the Court. This determination under section 23, subsection 1 of this

enquiry only establishes the possibility that hearsay will be admitted. The duty to conduct a fair hearing in accordance

with the interests of justice and fairness is a continuing and pervasive duty imposed on this Court. It remains, therefore,

firstly for the hearsay to be adduced and then secondly, for the Court to make such further enquiries as may be

required by section 23 of the 1997 Children Act and the remainder of part 3 of the said 1997 Act as to whether the

evidence should be admitted. If admitted, the Court must then consider, as required by section 24 of the Children Act

1997 what weight, if any, is to be given to any admitted hearsay evidence.”

8. This preliminary determination was made in 2016. Hearsay evidence was then adduced throughout the hearing, comprising and

including;

A. A foster carer to whom allegations were made and who had made handwritten notes of the child's words and who gave

evidence to the Court

B. A member of An Garda Síochána who had conducted eight interviews which were, and had their purpose, achieving

best evidence. These interviews were all recorded by DVD. There were two further meetings with the child, called

clarification interviews, which were not recorded by DVD

C. A social worker at SCSAA Unit who had conducted three meetings with the child. These were all recorded on DVD and

had their stated purpose, as per the evidence presented to this Court, to assess the credibility and advice on therapeutic

interventions. All DVDs were played to the Court

D. The Child and Family Agency social worker assigned to the case also gave evidence to the Court in relation to certain

statements the child had made to this person

E. The Guardian Ad Litem, a schoolteacher, a psychotherapist and an access worker also gave evidence of conversations

with the child

F. Three booklets of disclosures, typed, were filed in court and received into evidence and exchanged with the parties.

However, I am not proposing to rehearse a verbatim account of the evidence which proceeded over 14 days of the hearing. In

relation to the hearsay produced and adduced to this Court, this Court has to consider whether this hearsay can be admitted.

9. The matter of hearsay evidence of a child in the context of sexual abuse allegations has been the subject of judicial comment. In

Re MSW (Infants) 1999, Judge Keane approved a number of factors set out in a judgment of R v. Khan [1990] 2 SCR 531 to determine

the competence of a child to give evidence in the context of admitting hearsay evidence as to child sexual abuse. The factors

relevant to competence include; timing, demeanour, the personality of the child, the intelligence and understanding of the child, and

the absence of any reason to expect fabrication in the statement. Section 23 (2) (a) of the Children Act 1997 provides that where it

is not in the interests of justice to admit hearsay evidence, the Court can decline to so admit the evidence. Section 23 (2) (b)

specifically identifies, as a relevant consideration in admitting hearsay evidence, the potential unfairness to any party to the

admission. Costello P., in his judgment in Re MS v. W 1996 identified a number of factors relevant to the decision to admit hearsay

evidence of child sexual abuse. These included the fact that a contemporaneous note of the child's evidence was taken, that the

evidence of the hearsay witness was clear and unhesitating, that the witness had no background information on the child or the

parents in question, and was thus objective and independent, and that the witness did not prompt the child. Further, helpful factors

are contained in the decision of Lord Justice Ward in Re M [1996] 1 FLR 478, also in the context of sexual abuse and the admission of

hearsay evidence of same. The Court noted that the following factors should be considered in that decision; whether the diagnosis of

sexual abuse emanated from a person with a high level of expertise, such as a child psychologist or psychiatrist; whether the child's

evidence was contaminated by a pressured interviewed; whether there was a time lapse between the allegation and the interview;

whether there was an absence of repeated complaint by the child, and whether there was a parent present during the interview.

10. It is noteworthy that the hearsay evidence in this case, including allegations to the foster mother, and this is in this case of this

child, were committed to written notes made simultaneously, which were comprised of DVD recordings and copies were made available

to the respondent mother and her legal team in sufficient time for analysis and to provide rebuttal evidence. Furthermore, in this

case, the DVD record and the transcript of same were the subject of an independently commissioned report by forensic psychologist

from the United Kingdom as regards the interview and the DVD processes by An Garda Síochána and SCSAA Unit. The information

emerging from same and professional forensic psychologist's comment on the factors identified that are assessed in seeking to verify

credibility or not were available to the Court.

11. Judge Keane, in the decision in RE MSW of 1999, noted that a videotape or a DVD constituted a different form of hearsay

evidence;

"It is similar to oral testimony in that the judge can see and hear the exact statement. The judge can assess what

weight and credibility should attach to it".

He did, however, require the judge to consider that the child is not cross-examined, that the testimony is unsworn, and the

questioning is conducted by someone who is not a lawyer. These considerations aside, Judge Keane recommended the application of

three principles in relation to the DVD/videotapes. Number 1: "The videotaped statement was a hearsay statement and admitted as

an exception to the rule against hearsay, and subject to whatever weight and credibility the judge afforded the statement, with

particular vigilance on the pressure on the child and the use of leading questions". Number 2: "Expert evidence is necessary to explain

and interpret the relevance of body movement, use of language, vocal intonation and signs of fantasising." Number 3: "The expertise

of the interviewer would have to be a very high standard." Keane J., indicated it was desirable that the experience of the interviewer

approximated that of a clinically experienced child psychologist or child psychiatrist; therefore, section 23 permitted and hearsay

evidence is admitted in this case.

12. The Court must now consider the further checks and balances contained under section 24 and section 25 of the Children Act

1997. Section 24 sets out a number of factors. The Court must consider in deciding what weight to be attached to the evidence

including the timing of the child's statement, whether there was multiple hearsay, whether any person involved had a motive to

conceal or misrepresent matters, whether the original statement was an edited account or was it made in collaboration with another

for a particular purpose and the circumstances in which the evidence was adduced.

13. Section 25 provides a further check on the admissibility of hearsay evidence by enabling a Court to hear evidence as to its

credibility or lack thereof. In Re N [1996] 4 All England Reports, it sheds some light on how to assess whether a hearsay statement is

credible. Again, Lord Justice Ward defined the role of an expert witness in the admission of hearsay evidence in relation to sexual

abuse allegation as the expert, covering such matters as;

"nuances of emotion and behaviour, gestures and body movements, the use or non-use of language and its imagery, the

vocal inflections and intonations, the pace and pressure of the interview, the child's verbal and intellectual abilities or

lack of them or any signs of or the absence of signs of fantasising."

Ward, LJ categorically stated that the expert could not give an opinion as to whether an individual perpetrated abuse; this is a

decision that must be made by the Court. The role of the Court is to assess and weigh the evidence including that of any expert

opinion.

14. Proof of any harm may be established by parental concession or agreement. In this case, the respondent mother denies any harm.

The respondent mother, in her response to purported findings of fact filed in this case, admitted a difficulty with alcohol sometimes

which the respondent mother says she is dealing with, but denied categorically any harm of any kind to the subject child and denied

entirely the allegations against her. The burden of proof in these cases is on the balance of probabilities and the onus is on the Child

and Family Agency to produce the evidence. The threshold criteria for State intervention are set out under section 18 of the Act; I

do not propose to quote this section in its entirety but make reference to it. The Court has an overriding duty to the welfare of the

child. The Court has a pervasive duty to ensure fair procedures.

15. This case, as previously alluded, included fourteen days of hearing and evidence was heard from fourteen witnesses including the

respondent mother and the Guardian Ad Litem to the child. I do not propose to reiterate all evidence heard by this Court, but on the

balance of probabilities on assessing all the evidence and after hearing from all the witnesses and being satisfied that all the evidence

was properly tested and questioned in cross examination by and on behalf of all of the parties and the Guardian Ad Litem, and mindful

of the wisdoms contained in the judgments already referred to above, and being satisfied that fair procedures were afforded to the

respondent mother, I have decided that substantial weight must be attached to the hearsay evidence that was adduced to this Court

and I propose to make the following findings of fact.

16. This child came to the attention of the social work department in 2007 due to a referral to the department regarding the

respondent mother's drinking. A number of similar referrals were made between 2007 and 2009. In winter 2012, a child protection

notification was received from the principal of the child's school regarding the child. A neighbour of the respondent mother reported to

the school that the child was in a distressed state one evening in winter 2012 and alleged that the child had been locked in her home

for three days alone, hungry and unwashed. Social workers carried out a home visit with An Garda Síochána where they observed the

respondent mother to be intoxicated and the house to be in an appalling condition. The child made a number of concerning disclosures

to the social worker in relation to her life and the care of her mother; such as being locked into the house alone, of being left alone to

fend for herself, of suffering physical abuse and of neglect. An Garda Síochána invoked section 12 of the Child Care Act 1991 and the

then HSE applied to Court for an emergency care order. That order was granted and an application for an interim care order was

made. That order has been extended on and off until the full hearing of this matter.

17. During the early months of 2013, the child made serious disclosures of neglect, physical and emotional abuse by her mother to her

then foster carer and to her social worker. All disclosures were denied by the respondent mother. During this period the child was self

harming. The child was having nightmares, particularly in or around the times of access with her mother. The child attended a play

therapist for several months during 2013 and evidence was available to the Court of the play therapist. During the final half of 2013,

the child made a number of very serious disclosures initially to her foster carer and subsequently to An Garda Síochána and social

worker of SCSAA Unit in relation to sexual abuse perpetrated by several different men known to respondent mother and with the

knowledge and involvement of the respondent mother and brother. The child was referred initially to SCSAA Unit in autumn 2013. The

assessment team in SCSAA Unit was concerned that the child had been sexually abused. The forensic psychologist carried out an

assessment of the videos of An Garda Síochána interviews and the videos of SCSAA Unit interviews to assist the Court in determining

the credibility of the allegations made by the child. He found that there was very little to give him cause for concern regarding the

veracity of the child's evidence.

18. On the totality of the evidence presented to this Court, I find as a fact on the balance of probabilities that while in the care of

the respondent mother, this child suffered physical abuse, neglect, emotional abuse and sexual abuse and that the respondent mother

denied and continued to deny throughout the hearing what the Court has now found as a fact and offered as an explanation that the

child was a liar, that she was being coached and that it was made up. I do not accept any of these explanations as having any merit.

Furthermore, any further explanations offered by the mother, whether through the cross examination of her counsel and submissions

of her counsel or through her own evidence were found by the Court not to have merit. Furthermore, I find as a fact that the

respondent mother's lack of parenting capacity and insight into the child has further adversely affected the child with the respondent

mother attempting to deflect all blame onto the child. I adopt the following findings of fact as follows:

19. That the child was born on a certain date, that the respondent is the mother of the child, that the social work file for the family

records seven referrals between 2007 and 2009 relating to the concerns regarding the respondent mother being under the influence of

alcohol while caring for the child. That the child was locked into the house by her mother and left alone for several days in winter

2012. That the child was observed to be hungry, unwashed and very distressed on this date when she went to her neighbour's house.

The child also displayed cuts and bruises. That the child's neighbour was fearful for the child's safety in the care of her mother. That

the social worker observed the respondent mother's house to be in an appalling state and observed the respondent mother to be

intoxicated. That the child made disclosures to the social worker of having been locked into the house and left alone by the

respondent mother. That the Gardaí invoked section 12 of the Childcare Act 1991 as they believed that there was a serious and

immediate risk to the child. That the child missed thirty-five days of school in the academic year 2011 to 2012 which was reported to

the National Educational Welfare Board. That the child made some academic progress in school, but her absences from school

prevented her from improving significantly. That when the child came into foster care, she presented with head lice, which appeared

to have been untreated as the child had scabs on her scalp. The head lice required three doses of treatment over a one-month

period. That between 2012 and 2013, the child made serious disclosures of physical abuse, of neglect, and emotional abuse to her

then foster carer, to her social worker, to her access worker and to her teacher. That the respondent mother threatened the child at

access in early 2013 and she said "Who told you to write this, do not ever write about my drinking again or you will see what

happens." That during 2013, the child presented with concerning patterns of behaviours prior to and after access visits, bed wetting,

soiling, self harm and nightmares. The child engaged in rubbing her knuckles off fabrics until they bled, sharpening her pencils and

stabbing them into her palm, using her pencil sharpener to pare her fingers, hair pulling, pulling off her toenail in response to previous

stressful situations. That the child reported that she hurts herself to let the anger against her mother out. That access between the

child and the respondent mother has been supported by the social work department since 2015 insofar as it has taken place, and

there was a substantial period when the child did not want access and this wish was respected by the respondent mother. That since

winter 2012, the social worker has observed the respondent mother to be under the influence of alcohol, smelled alcohol from her

breath or observed slurred speech on several occasions and that the respondent mother has been incoherent during a telephone

conversation. That the respondent mother has attended addiction services but has not acknowledged that she has an alcohol

addiction problem. That the child made significant disclosures of having been sexually abused while in the respondent mother's care to

a foster carer in 2013 to the effect that she was raped by a number of individuals known to the respondent mother with her mother's

knowledge and participation. That the child made significant disclosures of neglect, physical and emotional abuse to SCSAA Unit and

the assessment team in SCSAA Unit was concerned that the child had been sexually abused and that her reports of abusive

experiences appeared of merit. The child made significant disclosures to the Gardaí who conducted the recorded interviews and two

grounding throughout 2013. These disclosures were detailed; they were disclosures of suffering physical abuse, emotional abuse,

neglect and sexual abuse while in the care of the respondent mother and with the knowledge and participation of the mother and on

one occasion, the brother. That the child's evidence to An Garda Síochána in the Gardaí interviews was assessed by the forensic

psychologist using the tools of forensic psychology, which in his opinion, led to him finding that there was little cause for concern

regarding the veracity of the child.

20. It is the finding of this Court that it is extremely unlikely that a child who had not been abused would be able to give on account

as detailed as that of this child or display the behaviour associated with the allegations. It is further the finding of this Court that the

central narrative of the child's account is authentic and the child’s presentation was largely congruous with her allegations. The Court

finds that there is nothing on the face of the interviews of the Gardaí or SCSAA Unit or other evidence to cast doubt of the veracity

of this child's claims that her mother knowingly involved her in sexual abuse. The Court finds that the relationship between the child

and the respondent mother has been profoundly compromised. The Court found that on the balance of probabilities, this child was

sexually abused while in the care of the respondent mother, that the respondent mother knowingly involved the child in sexual abuse,

that the child was neglected while in the care of her mother, that the child was subject to emotional abuse while in the care of the

mother, the child was subject to physical abuse while in the care of the mother, that the respondent mother has not shown any

acknowledgment of the impact the very serious disclosures and allegations may have had on the child. I find that the respondent

mother has purported and stated and, it would appear, indicated that it is the child's fault. The Court finds that the respondent

mother is in denial and it would appear, therefore, is not open to change and that the care of this child and the risk of reoccurrence

of abuse to the child is highly likely if the child was returned to the care of her mother.

21. On the totality of the evidence and on the balance of probabilities, I find that the grounds for making a full care order in respect

of this child exist, that the child's health, development or welfare has been avoidably impaired or neglected, the child's health

development or welfare is likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected if the care order is not made, that the child requires care and/or

protection, which she is unlikely to receive unless this Court makes the care order, that the child requires care and/or protection

which she is unlikely to receive from the respondent mother, that in all the circumstances of this case that a care order pursuant to

section 18 (1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Child Care Act 1991 is necessary at this time. I am satisfied on the evidence presented to me

that the hearsay evidence presented of the child's words and disclosures were accurate and reliable and can be attributed weight by

this Court in the finding of facts as found.

22. My reasoning in this regard is that the source of the allegations was the words of child herself. The Court looked at and evaluated

the allegations of the child in many regards looking at the timing, the demeanour, the timing of the allegations, the affect of the child,

the personality of the child, the intelligence and understanding of the child, the absence of a reason to fabricate, contemporaneous

note of the foster mother, the DVD of recorded notes simultaneously to the time of the child's words, the clear and unhesitating

manner of the child in relation to the content, the persons to whom said matters were said who I find were objective and

independent, that there was no prompting. The diagnosis by the independent forensic psychologist in the terms of his report assisted

the Court in outlining the tools for assessing credibility. I find that there was no contamination. Some Gardaí interviews were too long,

but any deficiency perceived in the Garda Síochána interviews were cured by the veracity of the child. There was not a time lapse

that affected the veracity of the content. There was no identical repeated complaint of a kind that this Court finds indicated that the

matter was fabricated by the child or prompted or pressured onto the child. There were some similarities in the descriptions by the

child of the sexual abuse allegations but these confirm to the Court that the child had experienced abuse, and had just found the

words to describe it, at the hands of multiple perpetrators. The child named seven perpetrators. The child also alleged that she had

been drugged preliminary to some instance of abuse by the respondent and had been made to participate in the creation or making of

pornographic material by the respondent. The child in this most difficult matter had found some words to describe what a most

abusive experience this was. The child's affect, manifestation of distress, relief after disclosure, tone of voice and demeanour verified

the credibility and veracity of the content. What the child said, the way the child said it, the words used by the child, the affect of

the child. I was satisfied also that this child was subjected to physical abuse and neglect. The manner of expression of the child,

including the physical and facial expressions all satisfied the Court of the veracity of the content. The DVD evidence of this case

enabled the Court to see and assess the weight and credibility to be attached to the hearsay. The Court was mindful that the child

could not be cross examined and was particularly vigilant in assessing the content so as to arrive at the decision of the Court and

was mindful and assessed the evidence of the respondent mother. I find that the persons to whom the statements were made had no

purpose to fabricate or to conceal or to misrepresent matters. The Court carried out its assessment of credibility and had then the

benefit of the opinion of a forensic psychologist who identified the indicators of credibility that this Court could look to in making its

decision on the credibility and the veracity of this child.

23. The Court noted throughout the DVD evidence the nuances of emotion and behaviour, the gestures, the body movements, the

use and non use of language and its imagery, the vocal inflections, the intonations, the child's intellectual and verbal abilities, the lack

of pressure and the pace of disclosures and lack of signs of fantasising. The Court accepts that this child suffered neglect, physical

harm and sexual abuse of the kind described by the child while in the care of the respondent mother and is satisfied to accord full

weight to the veracity of the child's content. The child's account is corroborated as regards neglect and emotional abuse by the

evidence of; 1) the school principal in relation to the child missing excessive amounts of school days, necessitating a referral to the

National Education and Welfare Board; 2) the evidence of the neighbour of finding the child in winter 2012 home alone unwashed,

hungry, cold, with no food; 3) the evidence of the Gardaí who invoked section 12 of the Child Care Act 1991 the following day on the

condition that the home was "uninhabitable" and the presentation of the respondent mother as "incoherent and seriously intoxicated";

4) the evidence of the social worker who also attended the child's home in winter 2012; 5) the evidence of the respondent mother

herself who, prior to furnishing her evidence, was administered the warning against self incrimination. In her evidence to this Court,

the Court found that the respondent mother displayed no insight into the child and did not display any overt desire to try to have

insight into the child and furthermore, did not demonstrate to this Court the concern for the child which good enough parenting would

normally exhibit.

24. I note that An Garda Síochána process in this case was designed to achieve best evidence in the context of a criminal

investigation only and was not in any manner an assessment of credibility.

25. I note that the assessment by SCSAA Unit was proposed to be an assessment of credibility and an assessment of therapeutic

needs. I find, as a fact in this case, that the assessment by SCSAA Unit did not constitute an assessment of credibility that this

Court could attach any weight to. The assessment was carried out by social workers, albeit having expertise in the field of child

abuse assessment, but there was no demonstration of any analytical forensic tools in assessing the credibility of the child and in

essence. I find on the facts of this case that the purported credibility assessment of SCSAA Unit is not one on which the Court can

place any reliance. It is noteworthy that the practice guidelines dated the 1st of January 2016 produced to this Court by SCSAA Unit

as the guidelines to their practice referred to the assessment service being offered at paragraph 2.3 of those guidelines in the

following terms:

"An independent opinion regarding possible child sexual abuse and based on a psycho/social and paediatric evaluation

where there are grounded concerns."

I find as a fact in this case that there was no psychological input in the assessment process by SCSAA Unit, contrary to the practice

guidelines which were presented to me which seemed to indicate that there would be such.

26. I find as a fact that An Garda Síochána were proceeding to process and achieve best evidence interviews in accordance with An

Garda Síochána good practice guidelines. These guidelines were also submitted to the Court, dated July 2003. These guidelines at

page 7 state the following:

"The roles and responsibilities of An Garda Síochána and the then Health Board in the assessment and investigation of

suspected child abuse are set out in Children First as follows: The Health Board (now the Agency) and An Garda Síochána

are the key agencies empowered by law to carry out the assessment and investigation of suspected child abuse. Each

agency manages the responsibility within their brief and their joint efforts ensure that the protection of vulnerable

children receives priority attention. The separate and complimentary roles require careful understanding if the shared

objectives of child protection are to be realised. An Garda Síochána have the additional responsibility of bringing abusers

to justice. The Health Board has overall responsibility for the assessment and management of child protection concerns.

At the same time, An Garda Síochána has responsibility for the investigation of alleged offences. No one professional has

all the skills, knowledge or resources necessary to comprehensively meet all the requirements of an individual case. It is

essential therefore that a coordinated response is made by all professionals involved with the child."

27. I find as a fact in this case and on the facts presented to me that the Child and Family Agency and An Garda Síochána ensured

an achieving best evidence process occurred in this case and the Child and Family Agency requested that an assessment of credibility

be conducted by SCSAA Unit.

28. There is no evidence before this Court on this particular case that there was a comprehensive coordinated response and a joint

agency approach by SCSAA Unit with An Garda Síochána or by the Garda Síochána with SCSAA Unit to comprehensively meet the

requirements of this individual child, such as, for example, consideration of joint interviewing with input from an appropriately qualified

professional such as psychologist or psychiatrist.

29. Now, having made my decision that this child must be placed in State Care, pursuant to the provisions of section 18 (1) ( a), ( b)

and (c), having been so satisfied on the balance of probabilities and the totality of the evidence as outlined, I now must turn to the

duration of the order that is proportionate and necessary in light of the findings of fact made and the evidence to this Court of the

child's wishes and welfare presented to the Court through the Guardian Ad Litem and the other witnesses. I am mindful of the

obligations on this Court to apply the law in accordance with European Convention of Human Rights convention and case law and that

there must be a proportionate interference in family life. I find that in accordance with the voice of this child as now constitutionally

mandated, and in any event, a matter that would have been and have to be considered by this Court through the medium of the

Guardian Ad Litem and the expression of the wishes and welfare of the child, I believe that the order which this Court must make in

relation to this child is an order that she will be committed to the care of the Agency until she is eighteen, for the duration of her

minority. I believe that this is a proportionate and necessary order to secure the child's welfare.

30. I furthermore make the following directions under section 47 as I believe that these are mandated on the facts and evidence in

this case.

A. That access is pursuant to section 37 of the Child Care Act 1991 within the statutory framework laid out in that

section and in accordance with the child's pace access to the respondent mother can occur and be supported and access

can include sibling and family access through whatever medium as is in the child's best interests and for whatever time,

place duration, and frequency as is in accordance with the child's welfare.

B. That this child is afforded a real opportunity to know her identity and is enabled to avail of life story work in

accordance with her own pace.

C. That the Guardian Ad Litem is reappointed without further court order to this matter and the matter is re-entered in

Court in the event that any of the following occurs:

i. That the current placement is not matched as a long term placement within three months from today,

ii. That there is any change in the current placement either planned or unplanned,

iii. That an after care worker is not allocated to this child at age 16 years old,

iv. That this child is left without an allocated social worker for a period in excess of four weeks or if this child is

without an allocated fostering link social worker for a period in excess of 4 weeks.

v. If it is the case that statutory child in care reviews that include consideration of the child's voice do not take

place within the time frame set down by statute then this matter again is to be re-entered and the Guardian is to

be reappointed without further court order.

vi. If social work visits do not occur at the frequency mandated and as set down by law.

D. I also direct that the Agency afford this child any necessary therapeutic services that are mandated or required to

secure her welfare.

E. I will be proposing that this case will be given a court listing for her after care review and after care planning on the

child's 17th birthday at a date which will be in the final order.

F. I propose that the Guardian Ad Litem be discharged in the current proceedings at a date and a time to be agreed

and/or decided by the Court.

31. I believe that it is a duty on this Court to now address the child, the subject of the proceedings, to wish her very well in her

future and to acknowledge the resilience and brilliance this child has displayed in the facts that I have found in this case. I applaud

this child for her resilience, I wish her good fortune and I want this child to know that this Court has endeavoured to act in her best

interests in reaching this decision. I want the Guardian Ad Litem and the dedicated social worker to ensure that this child is informed

of the terms of this decision in a manner that ensures her welfare and wellbeing.

District Court Judge

Marie Quirke