District Court grants Care Order for 32-month-old child due to parental addiction and neglect risks.

[2017] IEDC 08

AN CHUIRT DUÍCHE THE DISTRICT COURT

THE CHILD AND FAMILY AGENCY

APPLICANT

-AND-

NB & GL

RESPONDENT

APPLICATION UNDER S.18 (1) OF THE CHILD CARE ACT, 1991 IN RESPECT OF CHILD (32 months old)

[Note: This is an edited version of the reasons for a decision of the Court. Any changes from 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 child the subject matter

of the proceedings.]

1. The Applicant applied for a Care Order in respect of a child aged approximately 32 months at the date of the hearing and the

duration of the Order sought by the Agency was until the child should attain the age of 18 years.

2. The parents were each legally represented in the proceedings. The child’s interests in the proceedings were addressed by the

Guardian Ad Litem.

The Parents

3. Each parent is vulnerable for different reasons. The mother was in the care of the agency as a minor for a period and was a

teenage mother. Her history of addiction dates from her teens. The father’s history of addiction also dates from his early teens and

has spent periods of time in prison. He has been able to gain traction on his addiction when incarcerated and links homelessness to a

slide back to substance misuse. Each of the parents has another child in the care of other family members.

4. The Agency became involved before the birth of the child on notification from the maternity hospital that the mother was addicted

to heroin in the early stages of her pregnancy. The mother was placed on a Methadone maintenance programme and had abstained

from smoking cannabis due to the pregnancy. The mother was also prescribed ‘Valium’ (a benzodiazepine) due to her mental health

difficulties.

The Child

5. The child was born prematurely weighing 2210 grams (4.8oz) and placed in the neo natal intensive care unit of the hospital. He was

born with low temperature, poor feeding and neo natal abstinence syndrome. He was prescribed “Oramorph” for withdrawals and was

tube fed.

The Child Protection Support Plan

6. A Child Protection Conference was held following the birth of the child and the plan devised by the Agency in co-operation with the

parents was that the parents would care for the child in the company of a protective adult to be identified within the family. It was

also agreed that both parents would engage consistently with addiction services and provide weekly urine-analysis. Both parents also

agreed to engage in a parental capacity assessment so as to identify how best the Agency could support them in their care of the

child. The Public Health Nurse was to have oversight of the child regularly. The child was also placed on the Child Protection

Notification System and the Agency agreed to monitor the case.

7. On a review it was established that the mother’s mental health had deteriorated and she was now diagnosed with post natal

depression. Each parent continued to struggle with substance misuse. The child was not in fact cared for by his parents but by family

members. Accordingly the Care Plan for the child was revised to identify specific family members to be primary carers of the child

under a private family arrangement. The child was removed from the Child Protection Notification System. Approximately one year

later it became known to the Agency that the private family arrangement had been altered without their knowledge. The child

gravitated back to the care of his mother and missed a significant number of Public Health appointments. The Public Health Nurse was

concerned about the child’s development.

Voluntary Care s. 4 Child Care Act, 1991

8. Following some weeks of dialogue between the Agency and the parents it was agreed that the child should come into Agency non

family foster care for a period to allow the parents to stabilize in their addiction in order to resume care of the child. The child was

placed in a short term foster placement near to the mother’s accommodation. This arrangement was made for approximately 3

months. In the period, the mother only occasionally availed of access with the child. When it became clear that a longer period would

be required by the parents to achieve their goal of reunification, the Agency became concerned that the child should be moved to a

long term foster placement. The father, who was at this time in prison, declined to extend the duration of the voluntary care

agreement. On his release from prison the parents availed of homeless accommodation. They failed to attend arranged appointments

with Agency social workers, and expressed conflicting views on the need for the child to remain in voluntary care. In these

circumstances, the Agency applied for an Interim Care Order;

Interim Care s. 17 Child Care Act Process

9. The Application of the Agency for an Interim Care Order was properly served on each parent who were at this time residing in

homeless accommodation. Neither parents appeared in Court. The evidence adduced by the allocated social worker provided

reasonable cause to believe that the child (then aged 20 months) had specific development delays as well as concerning attachment

and health issues which required remediation. The evidence adduced was that this remediation was unlikely to be achieved unless the

court made an order under s. 17 of the Child Care Act, 1991 to protect the child’s health, development and welfare pending the

determination of an application for a Care Order under s.18 of the Child Care Act, 1991.

10. The Court directed the Agency to notify the parents of the Court’s decision and its implications for the child, of the parent’s right

to appeal the court’s decision and of their right to apply for Civil Legal Aid to be represented in the proceedings. The Court also

directed the Agency to set out clearly for the parents the steps necessary to achieve reunification with the child and the steps

necessary to begin a plan of access to the child.

11. The Interim Care Order was extended from time to time over a period of a year to the date of hearing. On the third application to

extend the Interim Care Order the parents were legally represented in the proceedings, however they had left the court building by

the time the case was heard in Court. The evidence presented to the Court was that the parents continued to struggle with addiction

and remained dependent on homeless accommodation. The mother indicated through her legal representative a willingness to avail of

psychiatric treatment. The court was informed that the parents were willing to engage in a parental capacity assessment to be

undertaken by the Agency and had resumed their access with the child and this access was largely positive for the child and the

parents. However the Agency remained concerned that the central issue inhibiting their resumption of care of the child was their drug

addiction which impacted on every aspect of parenting;

12. The Court appointed a Guardian Ad Litem to represent the interests of the child on the fourth application to extend the Interim

Care Order. The Interim Care Order was extended largely with the consent of the parents from time to time until the hearing of the s.

18 Application. In the intervening period the parents continued to attend access and engage in the parental capacity assessment.

They also engaged with their ongoing drug treatment plan although there were slips in substance misuse from time to time.

13. At the date of hearing of the application for a Care Order the Agency indicated that the duration of the order sought was a long

term one, until the child reached 18 years of age. This Application was supported by the Guardian Ad Litem for the child.

14. Each parent was present at the hearing and legally represented. The Court was advised that the parents would consent to the

order sought provided there was a full review of he Care Order by the Court in twelve months. The Booklets of Social Work Reports

and the Parental Capacity Assessment provided by the Agency was not admitted into evidence without formal proof, however the

Reports at tab 15,16 & 17 of the Booklet (which relating to the Treatment Plan of each parent and the Urine-analysis Reports of each

parents) were admitted into evidence without formal proof.

15. The Court heard evidence from:

a) SW 1 (SW1) who was allocated to the case for approximately a six month period. SW1 had been a supervising role in

the management of the case for four months prior to her allocation as the social worker in the case.

b) SW 2 (SW2) who was allocated to the case after SW1’s departure, and she was the allocated SW in the case until the

date of hearing of the Care Order;

c) The Respondent mother;

d) The Guardian Ad Litem

16. SW 1’s evidence emphasised that in the case of the mother the overarching issue impacting her ability to care for the child

related to her addiction and mental health issues. In the case of the father the overarching issue also related to his addiction and his

criminal activities which result in incarceration from time to time. The family support plans had been ineffective to assure the best

interests of the child. The child moved between various family carers and his welfare was neglected.

17. SW1 & SW2 acknowledged that the parents loved the child very dearly and their attendance at access had improved and was

very appropriate.

18. SW2’s evidence emphasised the findings of the parental capacity assessment. The risks identified in that assessment included

enduring parental addiction which was embedded and at times chaotic and associated homelessness. The impact of this on the child

has been significant. The child will require a formal Assessment of Needs under the Disability Act. The Child’s speech had been delayed

for his age, and he may also have development delay although it had been established that he does not have an autism spectrum

disorder. The child will require assessment for speech and language delay, occupational therapy, and a psychological assessment. His

needs were not yet completely defined as of the date of hearing and accordingly the Care Plan for the child was not available to the

Court for consideration.

19. SW2 also indicated that the challenges for the mother included not just her addiction, but also her mental health. The ability to

consistently engage with key housing agency workers was essential to overcome the issue of homelessness. Unfortunately the

mother’s experience as a young person in care made engagement difficult for her. There were periods of engagement and non

engagement by each of the parents. SW2 indicated that it was vital that the parents continued to engage with the social work

department and were open and honest with regard to their respective addictions. SW2 indicated that reunification would continue to

be assessed at each statutory Child in Care Review for the child;

20. The mother’s evidence and highlighted her concern that at that time the child was received into the formal care of the Agency

the social work report to court indicated that there was not enough food for the child in the house. Her evidence was that this was

not the case. There was always food for the child and when the social workers visited on that occasion, the position was that they

had yet to do their food shopping. The mother denied that there was not enough to eat in the house. However she accepted that the

Care Order needed to be made and the duration needed to extend until the child reached the age of 18 years. She acknowledged her

addiction and said that she needed “to get clean” and she needed to have a home. She pointed out that her life was very complex.

She sometimes gave clean urines and sometimes could not. The mother acknowledged that her compliance with appointments was

inconsistent and associated with her homelessness and her partner’s periods in prison. The mother described her life in homeless

accommodation which meant that she had to find a bed for the night on a day to day basis. She had no base. She hoped to meet a

key worker in a homeless agency on the following day and she also hoped that this would enable her to be allocated stable

accommodation. Her evidence was that she had been “clean” for a few days now and intended to remain substance fee and go to the

Drug Treatment Clinic regularly. The mother also evidenced that she was now taking medication for her mental health. Access with

the child is going well and she acknowledged previous inconsistency in attending access at times, which again was due to addiction,

homelessness and imprisonment. She expressed that she was very happy with his current foster carers and that the child is getting

“all the help he needs to bring him on”. However she was clear that “she would not make false promises” it was her intention and her

partner’s intention to “get clean”. They each wanted this but could not promise it. She also acknowledged that “we made mistakes

not the social work department”. She was anxious that the case would be reviewed by the Court in one year’s time to see whether

they managed to get substance free, to get accommodation, to engage consistently in access and so on. If they did so they knew

that they could then seek to discharge the Care Order if they could offer a good life to the child. 21. The Guardian Ad Litem gave

evidence in accordance with his Reports to the Court. He had a good relationship with the parents now. In his view the current foster

carers were exceptional and attentive to the care of the child in every way. It was his professional observation that there was no

real risk of an autism spectrum disorder for the child and many of the issues the child presented with might resolve, once the child

becomes more attached to his primary foster carers and parental access becomes consistent. The psychological assessment and the

assessment of needs for the child were also important to identify all the needs of the child and ensure that the indentified remediation

needs were addressed. It was his view that the parents were impressive in their current plans to become drug free. He acknowledged

that they needed to be given time to become drug free.

22. The Guardian Ad Litem could not recommend the Care Plan for the child to the Court at this time as the needs of the child

required to be clearly identified and services put in place to meet those needs to ensure his welfare. He was hopeful that the parents

would achieve their goals however the best interests of the child required the making of an Order until he was 18 years old with a

review by the Court in 12 months time. He was of the view that an After Care Review should be fixed at this time, in the event that

the child remained in the care of the Agency at age 17 years old.

FINDINGS UNDER S. 18

23. It is acknowledged by the parents that they each have long standing substance abuse issues which impacted on their ability to

care for their child. In the case of the mother, it is also acknowledged that she has mental health issues which she is now addressing.

In the case of the father, although he did not give evidence formally, he acknowledged that his periods in prison have prevented him

being available to care for this child, or support the mother in her care of the child. Each of the parents acknowledged that all of this

has rendered them homeless, and that they have been inconsistent with attendance at access in the past.

24. The mother does not accept that she physically neglected the child by having insufficient food for him and I accept her evidence

in this regard.

25. The parents acknowledge that they are unable to care for the child as they require time to address their respective addiction

issues and attain a substance free period post treatment;

26. A less intrusive arrangement such as a further voluntary care would not be appropriate as the previous arrangement of voluntary

care coupled with a Child Protection Notification and oversight by the Agency did not ensure the welfare of the child in the past. A

less intrusive order of the court such as a Supervision Order was not sufficient to ensure the care of the child in this case;

consecutive interim care orders under s.17 did not ensure his long term care needs;

27. It is now acknowledged that the child requires care or protection which he is unlikely to receive unless the court makes an order

under s. 18 and the evidence adduced before the Court supports the making of a Care Order.

28. The child is very young. He was born with particular health needs and circumstances which were not addressed for a period

notwithstanding a Child Protection Notification and a family support arrangement agreed to by the Agency. The child has particular

development needs, the extent of which must yet be fully determined. The parents each wish to overcome long standing addiction

issues, to secure housing and stability in a substance free life, to engage in access consistently and acknowledged that they hope to

do this but cannot promise it.

29. The Guardian points out that the child’s care givers must be committed, consistent, organised and efficient and at this time this is

not within the capability of the parents; the child will have many appointments to go to and these must be co-ordinated with

professionals. The current foster carers were approved as long term foster carers and they get on well with the parents. They are

attuned to ensuring that the child has consistency in attending both professional and access appointments. The child is now making

developmental progress. However he is also forming attachments and must be allowed to do so in order to ensure his long term

welfare.

CONCLUSION

30. For these reasons I am satisfied that a Care Order pursuant to s. 18(1)(b) and (c) is necessary to ensure the care and protection

of the child, which he is unlikely to receive unless the Court makes such an Order. I am also satisfied on the evidence that the

duration of the Order should be until the child reaches the age of 18 years. I am satisfied that the evidence establishes that the child

will need stable and attentive care-giving. He will need to attend speech and language therapy, occupational therapy and compliance

with the treatment plan put in place for him by all those in his life. He has had many carers to date and now needs to establish a

healthy and consistent attachment to his primary care givers and consistent access with his parents and extended family. The adults

involved in his day to day care will need to communicate and co-operate extensively to ensure that the child moves forward in a

healthy and productive way and achieves his potential.

31. I direct that the case is reviewed to assess the progress of the parents in gaining traction on their respective addiction issues,

health issues their consistency in attending access;

32. The parent’s access to the child will continue to be flexible and facilitate the Agency, and no formal order is required at this time

and access will continue to be in accordance with s. 37 of the Child Care Act, 1991.

33. I adjourned the question s.47 Directions to enable the Guardian Ad Litem to review and approve of the Care Plan for the Child. On

the adjourned date the Guardian Ad Litem was satisfied that the Care Plan was sufficient to identify and remediate the needs of the

child;

34. When the matter was returned to Court I made Formal Directions under s. 47: as follows:

(a) The case to be re-entered before the Court should the case become unallocated to a social worker or a fostering link

worker for a period of 4 weeks;

(b) The case to be re-entered before the Court should the child’s current foster placement break down or change or seek

to be changed for any reason;

(c) The case to be re-entered before the Court should there be a failure to adhere to or should there be any delay in

holding meetings mandated by the statutory Regulations set out in S.I No. 260/1995 or any substituted statutory

Regulations;

(d) A Default Re-entry should the formal matching of the child’s current placement, as his long term placement, not take

place by [date redacted];

(e) The Guardian ad Litem to be discharged and re-appointed in the event of any re-entry of the case before the Court

for any of the above reasons or for any reason precipitating the re-entry of the case before the Court such re-

appointment to be by notice GAL 8 weeks before the date of the re-entry in the case of a planned re-entry;

(f) The Court fixes dates for After Care Review to assess the Care and After Care needs of the Child (should the child

remain in the care of the Agency at that time) on [date redacted];

Judge Rosemary Horgan