District Court grants interim care order for four children pending parenting capacity assessment and reunification roadmap.

[2017] IEDC 24

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

THE CHILD AND FAMILY AGENCY

APPLICANT

-AND-

DG

RESPONDENT

-AND-

BW

RESPONDENT

CHILD CARE ACT 1991, Section 17

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN, Child 1, Child 2, Child 3 and Child 4

1. This is an application for an Interim Care Order pursuant to section 17 of the Child Care Act 1991 [hereinafter referred to as the

1991 Act] in relation to Child 1, Child 2, Child 3 and Child 4. Section 17 of the 1991 Act states:

[17] (1) Where a justice of the District Court is satisfied on the application of the Child and Family Agency that—

(a) an application for a care order in respect of the child has been or is about to be made (whether or not an

emergency care order is in force), and

(b) there is reasonable cause to believe that any of the circumstances mentioned at paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of section

18(1) exists or has existed with respect to the child and that it is necessary for the protection of the child’s health or

welfare that he be placed or maintained in the care of the Agency pending the determination of the application for the

care order,

the justice may make an order to be known and in this Act referred to as an “interim care order”.

There is also an application for a Care Order pursuant to section 18 of the 1991 Act, which has not been allocated a

hearing date.

2. Evidence has been heard over a period of four days, a substantive hearing, in relation to this application. The Court heard evidence

from two social workers; one social worker who has been allocated to Child 1 and Child 2, and another social worker allocated to Child

3 and Child 4. The Court also heard evidence from the team leader who supervises the work of the two social workers, a public health

nurse, a family support worker, a family support servicer from an independent children’s charity, and a worker within a crèche, where

one of the children attends. I heard evidence from the respondent father and from the Guardian Ad Litem.

3. I have considered all of the evidence and all material that has been admitted to the Court by consent. It is to be noted that any

specific reference to anything in this decision is not to be taken that I have not considered all of the material that has been

submitted to me in evidence, or by virtue of admitted material. Any reference to particular facts is not to be taken as an exclusion of

consideration of all the material circumstances of this case as outlined and opened to me.

4. It is the case that the four children, the subject of these proceedings, have been known to social services since 2010. There have

been six child protection case conferences that have taken place between 2015 and 2016. In the evidence, it appears that the father

and the mother reside at different houses, with the children residing at the residence of the mother and that some of the children

spend overnight visits at the father's residence.

5. At the outset of the proceedings it was outlined to the Court that the Child and Family Agency were applying for the making of an

Interim Care Order which, pursuant to legislation, can be for a period of 28 days. The Guardian Ad Litem, who was appointed to these

four children to represent their views, wishes, and welfare to the Court, as an independent channel for such and to assist the Court,

was appointed in 2016. The Guardian supports the making of an Interim Care Order in relation to all four children.

6. It was outlined to me at the beginning of this case that the respondent mother and father both agree that an Interim Care Order is

necessary for three months for the two younger children. However, they want and seek the return of the two older children to the

care of the respondent father who, it was advanced to me through his solicitor, would agree to a Supervision Order being put in place

and would consent to a parenting capacity assessment being carried out by the Child and Family Agency in the meantime. The Court

notes that these four children have been the subject of two voluntary admissions to care, once in 2015 for a period of three months,

and again in 2016 where the four children were placed into voluntary care and where they remain to this day. These four children

have, therefore, already had the traumatic experience of leaving the care of their parents and being placed in foster care.

7. After reviewing all of the evidence, I find the following as fact. I am satisfied that these four children, and their circumstances

when they were in the care of their parents, reached the level of neglect and abuse that requires them to be made the subject of an

Interim Care Order for their care and protection. I am satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that the children have

suffered neglect consistently while in the care of their parents and they are likely to suffer neglect if returned to their parents at this

time. I am also satisfied that Interim Care Orders are necessary for their care and protection of these four children.

8. I find as fact that the mother and father have co-parented, albeit in circumstances where the father does not stay overnight, in

the family residence. I am satisfied that co-parenting with shared responsibility was what was happening in the experience of these

four children. I am satisfied that the four children resided in a home and that the level of hygiene included a risk to the safety and

welfare of these children. I am satisfied that there was consistent neglect of the children’s basic needs, to include safety, exposure

to being unsupervised and/or being neglected. I am satisfied that both the father and mother, as co-parents, are responsible for

these circumstances. I do not believe it is open to one co-parent to neglect by omission, being fully aware of the actual

circumstances of the children and to allow that situation to continue.

9. I instanced one occasion where the father was visited in the home by a professional who was seeking to provide family support and

there was a lack of appropriate sterilisation and appropriate and safe bedding for an infant child. Child 2’s presentation, in particular,

was such that the child's right when he attended crèche to be able to engage with his peers and to enjoy his own life, was

compromised to a substantial degree by the manner in which he was left out by his parents to deal with the world. I believe that this

constituted consistent neglect by the parents. This Court is not in the business of perfect parenting or pristine hygiene, but the level

of hygiene that was outlined to the Court in this case is such that I believe that the children's right to enjoyment and basic safety in

their lives was compromised. It is noteworthy that the father, in his own evidence, could not see or recall the state of Child 2, which

was evidenced to me by a worker from Child 2’s crèche, and I accepted the evidence of that witness in that regard.

10. I have found as a fact that both parents did not engage with the social workers, an independent children’s charity and the family

support services to a degree required to actually create real improvement and change in the circumstances of their children's lives. I

find that there was a consistent failure by both parents to meet the basic needs of their children. I find as a fact that the respondent

mother has abused drugs and that the respondent father has chosen not to deal with this fact, even though it has and is impacting

on the lives, welfare and basic care needs of his four children. I find as fact that the respondent father has demonstrated

carelessness in his use of alcohol, such that the welfare of the children could reasonably be compromised. I believe that the

respondent mother and respondent father have not demonstrated to this court and I find it as a fact, the level of skills, basic, as

regards their children's essential fundamental needs for care on a consistent basis. I believe that the children have not been cared for

to a good enough standard of parenting. Medical appointments have been missed and I find as a fact that this was a joint

responsibility of both these parents. I believe that the respondent father has not demonstrated an insight into the children's basic

needs and the respondent mother has not ensured that the children's basic needs were met on a consistent basis.

11. The children are currently in voluntary care and they have already experienced the trauma of coming into care. I believe that

their care and protection requires that they are made the subject of an Interim Care Order at this time. However, I believe that the

following should occur in the meantime, enabled by the making of an Interim Care Order;

A. the Child and Family Agency should arrange a parenting capacity assessment of the respondent father without delay,

to include cognitive assessment;

B. the Child and Family Agency should provide a roadmap to both parents outlining what they must do for family

reunification to occur;

C. the Child and Family Agency should support the respondent mother to continue with her addiction treatment;

D. the Child and Family Agency should liaise with both respondent parents and the Guardian Ad Litem as to what the

children are to be informed about their current care status.

12. It is noteworthy in this case that both respondent parents are very good with their children at access and that the children are

bonded to their parents. This is a case where the actual abilities of the parents are not known and the roadmap for reunification must

identify supports tailored to these particular parents' weaknesses and strengths. I am satisfied that State interference in the family

life of these children and parents is a necessary interference on the facts of this case at this time and it is proportionate to the

circumstances as I have found them.

13. I am supported in this conclusion by the Court appointed Guardian Ad Litem. The Guardian was clear in her evidence that the

children's welfare requires the making of this order at this time. She was also clear that the children, insofar as they can express their

views, wish to return home. I am satisfied that there is a duty on the Child and Family Agency to identify now the parenting

capacities and/or lack of capacities, and the individual strengths and weaknesses of both these parents and to identify the necessary

supports that these parents would need in order to parent, and to formulate a roadmap of what is required for reunification of this

family.

14. It is noted that since the parents have now formally discontinued their own personal relationship since 2016, an individual

assessment of each parent and their individual circumstances must now occur in the interests of these children.

15. I do not believe it is in the interests of the two older children, and in accordance with their welfare, to be returned to the care of

their father at this time. On the facts, I find that it is necessary now for the Child and Family Agency to conduct a comprehensive

parenting capacity assessment of the respondent father. I am satisfied that it would not be in the interests of these children to be

returned without such an assessment taking place now and I note that this is a matter of urgency.

16. I have considered all the evidence and submissions arising in this case in reaching my decision and the law that applies in this

area. I propose that an Interim Care Order be made. The parties can let me know if there is a date agreed for the duration of such an

interim order and I will adjourn the application under section 18 for a Care Order.

17. In respect of two younger children, the Interim Care Order application, therefore, will be made. I direct that the Child and Family

Agency help the mother and support her in dealing with her addiction issues. I would like the Child and Family Agency to support the

father in ensuring that there is a fulsome parenting capacity assessment, an identification of his strengths and weaknesses and what

supports he would need.

18. This is a decision that has not been easy to reach. I would hope that the parents realise that I am showing respect for their

family life. I believe that there is work they have to do in order to parent their children to a good enough standard. I believe and I

would hope that they be given a clear road map for family reunification and that everything must be done in order to ensure that

these children have an opportunity for family life in their family. I believe that this work is necessary at this time.

Judge Marie Quirke

7th February 2017