After hearing from nine witnesses over the course of three days, a Dublin District Court judge granted an initial interim care order for a newborn baby boy. The mother, who was present in court, was a UK national who left England after another baby, her firstborn, Baby A, had been taken into care and put up for what she described as “forced adoption” by UK social services.
In 2024, when the mother arrived in Ireland, she was pregnant with her second child. When that child, a girl, was born, the Child and Family Agency (CFA) was granted a care order for the baby, Baby B.
In late 2025 the woman gave birth to a third baby in Ireland. Having held a pre-birth child protection conference, the CFA brought an application to take him into care at birth. For the first ten days of his life, the baby remained in his mother’s care at the maternity hospital where he was born. Mother and baby were medically fit for discharge, but agreed to remain in hospital until the court proceedings concluded.
The mother attended court in person and returned to her son after each day of the court hearing. On the third day, the court granted an order pursuant to section 17 of the Child Care Act 1991, which allowed for the immediate removal of the baby from his mother’s care, to be placed in an approved foster placement. The CFA also sought and were granted an order pursuant to section 35 of the Act, which allowed for members of An Garda Síochána to assist if required.
Aged 31, the mother’s background included diagnoses of emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD) and autism. She did not have criminal convictions or suffer from addiction issues. She told the judge how she was academically strong and had earned a full scholarship to a private school in England.
Her mental health had begun to suffer in her late teens and she felt that she did not meet her academic potential as a result. She suffered from self-harming and suicidal ideation. In the UK, she became known as an “over attender” to medical services, such as GP surgeries. In 2023, she was diagnosed with autism. She told the court how this diagnosis helped her in understanding her behaviour.
The barrister for the CFA stated that, in the CFA’s opinion and in light of the mother’s illnesses it would not be in the baby’s interest to be released home with her.
During the hearing, the court heard from nine witnesses: A consultant psychiatrist from the Rotunda maternity hospital; the social worker who was allocated to the woman’s second child; a case worker from Focus Ireland (via video link and in person); a mental health medical social worker from the Rotunda; a UK social worker (via video link); the current social worker allocated to the newborn boy in this matter; a counsellor from Jane’s Place, a woman’s psychotherapy service; the mother; a midwife, who had offered to take the mother and baby into her home; and the guardian ad litem.
Consultant psychiatrist from the Rotunda
The consultant psychiatrist from the Rotunda maternity hospital confirmed that the woman had been under the care of the hospital’s perinatal mental health team throughout her pregnancy. She accepted that the mother had diagnoses of autism and emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD), a “severe and enduring mental disorder”, as described in a UK psychiatric report.
She stressed that a personality disorder is excluded from being a “mental disorder” under the Irish Mental Health Act 2001, pointing to differences between Irish and English mental health legislation. She spoke of how the mother struggled to trust the team in the hospital initially, but once trust was established, she made steady progress. The team at the hospital adopted a “clean slate” approach. An occupational therapist had worked with the woman to assist her in regulating herself; for example sitting on a cold floor helped her with sensory difficulties. The team agreed to not change appointments at the last minute, to further assist in building a trusting relationship with the woman.
The psychiatrist summarised her report for the court as being that the woman initially presented as distressed, due to an unplanned pregnancy, homelessness, and having been separated from her children. She could not comment on the woman’s parenting ability into the future. For that reason, she and the hospital multi-disciplinary team (two psychiatrists, an occupational therapist, a social worker, a clinical nursing specialist, and psychologist) were recommending a mother and baby home. “We suggested a mother and baby home, where that question can be answered based on evidence, not suppositioned.”
The psychiatrist confirmed that the hospital’s mental health service would continue until the baby turned one, with a review three months beforehand. Based on that trajectory, she predicted that the next step would be for community mental health services to step in. The CFA’s barrister put it to the psychiatrist that the woman had declined to engage with community mental health services with her other child. The psychiatrist replied: “It took time to build trust and rapport, but once established, she has engaged in a very meaningful and respectful way.”
The mother’s barrister put it to the psychiatrist that it had been a UK psychiatrist’s view that a mother and baby home would be a good option. Having met weekly throughout the mother’s care, the hospital team agreed that a mother and baby home would be suitable and help answer questions around safety. She said: “There are millions of people around the world with these diagnoses who are successfully rearing children. It is not an absolute exclusion [to parenting].”
The GAL’s solicitor asked the psychiatrist about the woman’s making of multiple phone calls to services on a daily basis. The psychiatrist said that, once boundaries were put in place, that habit ceased. The solicitor asked about the woman’s tendency to speak of suicidal ideation. The psychiatrist said there is a clear difference between ideation and intent.
The judge asked the psychiatrist had the woman been treated without the baggage of her UK experience. The psychiatrist confirmed, “yes, we knew, but we met her where she was at.” The judge asked: “But is past behaviour not an indicator of future behaviour?” The psychiatrist replied: “We were not ignoring the past, but we focused on the future.”
The judge read to the psychiatrist the reasons given by two mother and baby homes why they would not accept the referral. He said: “Making a recommendation is all very well, but if there is no structure in place to facilitate it…” Referring to the fact that there was no mother and baby home prepared to take them, the judge said: “Either the CFA succeeds [in their application] or the baby goes home with his mother.”
The psychiatrist said: “I think she needs to be assessed,” and confirmed that her team “are not qualified to do those assessments,” referring to parental capacity assessments (PCA). The judge replied: “I don’t have the luxury of time.”
Social worker allocated to Baby B
The second witness was a social worker allocated to the mother’s second child. She described the mother’s engagement as “up and down”. While she did attend access with her second child, she was less inclined to engage with community mental health services. There was a specific incident whereby the mother allegedly took more Valium than had been prescribed to her the day before access with her daughter, whom she was breastfeeding. The baby was allegedly unsettled for days following access. The CFA ceased all breast-feeding after that incident.
The social worker explained why a parental capacity assessment was not carried out regarding the second child. Two courts in Ireland determined that Ireland was not the jurisdiction for that child; in light of the possibility that the child would be transferred to the UK, it was thought better to hold off on any PCA until that matter was decided. If returned to the UK, an Irish PCA would not apply, and the mother might have to undergo two PCAs as a result.
Case manager from Focus Ireland
The third witness for the CFA was a case manager for Focus Ireland, a homeless support service. Since arriving in Ireland, the woman had resided in homeless accommodation. Prior to the birth of this child, she was living in a family hub emergency accommodation in Dublin city centre. The case manager described his role as to link in with families living in such accommodation on a weekly basis. He described how the woman had been reluctant to meet him in person, but had requested by phone and text message a bigger, more suitable room for her and the baby.
In the days before the woman gave birth, the case manager said that she texted him a message which he said threatened that, if she did not get a better room, a body would be found in the room. As a mandated person, the case manager submitted a referral via the CFA’s online portal.
While giving sworn evidence via video link, the case manager confirmed that he kept all of the messages from the woman on his phone, which he held up to the camera and showed and read aloud examples. When asked to show the specific message about a body, he said that he would need time to find it, but was unable to. He said that there had been a mix of messages via ordinary text and WhatsApp. Asked to attend the next day to show it, he attended next day and he confirmed that in fact he could not find any such message.
On mature reflection, he said that the woman said it during a two-minute phone call that he made to her, as evidenced by his call log. He and his supervisor prepared a memo for court detailing the contents of the call. He confirmed that they wrote this memo on the morning of court, he had not made any contemporaneous notes about the phone call, and he did not include any evidence of the allegation with his referral to Tusla.
In court, he read the memo from his phone. The barrister for the mother put to the witness: “You are retrospectively seeking a narrative to suit your referral.”
Mental health social worker from the maternity hospital
The fourth witness was a senior medical social worker from the maternity hospital. She co-wrote the court report with the psychiatrist who had given evidence earlier in the day. The medical social worker described how, when the mother first engaged with their service, she presented as distressed, but within three months, things had turned around: “She attended all obstetrics appointments. Any missed mental health appointments, she let us know in advance.”
Regarding the suggestion that the woman ought to have been attending dialectical behavioural therapy (DBT), she said that there were not adequate resources in Ireland for the woman to do DBT, and that pregnancy would not be the best time to do it. Instead, the perinatal team focused on anxiety management skills, specifically in the context of the woman’s autism diagnosis.
When asked if she had any concerns over the woman’s ability to care for her child, the medical social worker answered: “In the hospital, she is on a ward with other women and babies. She is caring, calm, and competent in her care of her son.” The social worker said that the woman had successfully harvested colostrum during her pregnancy, in order to be able to supplement the baby’s feeds after he was born.
The judge asked the social worker for reasons given by the woman for missing mental health appointments. The social worker said it was because the woman had access with her daughter (Baby B) at the same time, or court appearances regarding her daughter, and once because she had attended the emergency department overnight.
UK social worker allocated to Baby 2
The fifth witness was a social worker from a “support and protect team” in the UK. She had become involved with the woman during her second pregnancy (the child was born in Ireland). She spoke of concerns of UK child protection services, her “extensive mental health history”, including EUPD and historic suicide attempts.
The social worker said that the woman attempted to conceal her second pregnancy after her first child was born. After the woman had left the UK, the social worker said that the RSPCA forced entry in to the woman’s home in the UK. They found three dead animals in the freezer and multiple cats locked in a shed. The animals in the freezer had been the woman’s pets that had died or been put down by a vet. The social worker said that the house was not suitable for a baby.
The UK social worker said that her team had “lots of worries” about the woman. When asked if the UK social services look at each child separately, she said: “Yes, absolutely. Each assessment starts from scratch. Obviously, we do take into account history, but we have to take into account the here and now.”
The social worker recalled how the woman spent eight weeks in a mother and baby home in the UK with her first child. There were two allegations, one regarding a mark on the baby’s skin and an accusation that he had been drugged. The UK social worker confirmed that both allegations were deemed to be “unfounded”. The mark on the baby’s skin was eczema and it transpired that he had not been drugged.
Social worker allocated to Baby C
The sixth witness was the social worker allocated to Baby C. She was allocated while he was in utero, near the start of the pregnancy. She had met the woman twice in person, once at her accommodation (this constituted a home visit) and once at a female-only homeless support service accompanied by two other social workers. At the home visit, the social worker observed “lots of baby essentials”. She spoke of how the woman asked that her advocate be present with her at social work meetings/visits.
The social worker spoke of a “broad range” of referrals received, from multiple maternity hospitals, from a women’s refuge, the Gardaí, and from Focus Ireland (as described earlier). The services were mandated to report to the CFA and expressed concern as to the woman’s ability to care for a child or new baby, in light of “erratic behaviour” and “excessive care seeking”. The social worker said they were concerned that the woman was a flight risk: “We raised unborn alerts in all maternity hospitals and port alerts with the Gardaí. We were worried she would flee or conceal the birth.”
The social worker confirmed that they contacted mother and baby homes on the first day of court, at the insistence of the mother’s legal team. She said that three referrals were made. One unit was closed due to staff shortages and the remaining two units refused the referral, “due to the mother’s mental health diagnoses and presentation”. Neither unit met with the woman.
Reasons for the refusals included that they “considered her too high-risk to herself, the baby, and other residents”, and they said it would be unfair to put her under the pressure of a parenting capacity assessment, which could take up to 16 weeks at a mother and baby unit. The mental health assessment of the maternity hospital had not been provided to the mother and baby units.
Pressed by the mother’s legal team, the CFA gave their word that they would make re-referrals, with amended wording in the correspondence (as agreed by both parties), and to include the hospital report with the referrals. The barrister for the woman put it to the social worker that her initial report accompanying the referrals stated the UK allegations, but did not state that they were deemed “unfounded”.
Barrister: You are not giving the correct impression.
Social Worker: Yes, I accept that.
Barrister: Are you telling the court that the agency’s attempt to have a PCA done was fair procedures?
Social Worker: We did all possible.
Barrister: You mentioned attachment. Do you accept that the only attachment he currently has is to his mother?
Social Worker: Yes.
Barrister: Have you considered the impact of breaking that attachment?
Social Worker: We see it as the only option.
The barrister for the mother suggested that it would be more proportionate to let the
mother’s progress proceed (as evidenced by the Rotunda report) and allow the child to be
with her under a supervision order. The judge pointed out that there was no supervision
order application before the court.
The barrister suggested to the social worker using Attuned Programmes Ireland, a service linked with the CFA which provided 24 hour-supervision at a residential unit. The social worker said that, if the ICO was granted, the CFA would work with the mother on a “trajectory and reunification plan”.
It was the social worker’s view that progress made under the Rotunda programme was not
for long enough and the CFA would need evidence of longer term-stability.
The barrister for the mother asked the social worker about a “good Samaritan” private individual who was offering to take the mother and baby into her own home. “Why are you so dismissive of her?” the barrister asked. The social worker said she was concerned about the individual’s insight into the CFA’s child protection concerns and the mother’s mental health. The barrister put it to the social worker that the hospital team recommended a mother and baby home: “It is only the CFA not supporting the mother and baby unit option.”
The social worker suggested that the CFA’s perspective differed from the Rotunda: “Our view is from the perspective of risk.”
Barrister: The CFA has an obligation to support parents with a disability to provide ‘good enough’ parenting.
Social Worker: Yes, we do.
Barrister: How is that the case when you met her twice? Is it the CFA’s case that you exhausted all options before applying for an ICO?
Social Worker: Yes.
The solicitor for the GAL asked the social worker what would be the CFA’s plan if an order was granted. The social worker replied, “a trajectory, reunification plan, and possibly a PCA (terms of reference to be agreed amongst parties)”. She confirmed that an approved foster placement in Dublin was ready to take the child. She would be proposing mother-baby access for two hours, three times a week, fully supervised: “We would not support breastfeeding at this time.”
The judge asked the social worker about the 16 referrals received by the CFA. She described that number as “unprecedented”. “We feel she was trying to evade social services, as she did in England. She had a pattern of presenting at different hospitals.”
Judge: You are not opposed to a mother and baby unit?
Social worker: No, but it hasn’t been long enough [referring to the positive mental assessment report of the Rotunda from May to November]
That concluded the CFA’s case. The mother’s barrister then called three witnesses.
Counsellor from Jane’s Place, a woman’s psychotherapy service
This witness was a counsellor from Jane’s Place, an all-female service connected to the Merchant’s Quay initiative. She told the court she had a BSC in counselling and psychotherapy, and had been counselling the mother for the previous twelve weeks. She confirmed the woman attended once a week for a 50-minute session and her appointment attendance had been consistent from the start.
The counsellor was aware of the woman’s diagnosis of autism. She explained how it could present as sensory overload, which could cause the woman to become quiet and withdrawn. The counsellor said that the woman’s engagement had progressively improved, from just attending her appointment to sitting in the kitchen with other service users and participating in group activities.
Barrister: Does she engage with other services in Jane’s Place?
Counsellor: Yes, she engages really well. Currently, we have a very clear plan on what to work on and she is actively doing that.
Barrister: Can you comment on her ability to parent?
Counsellor: I haven’t observed but, if she continues to work with us and our supports, I don’t see how she shouldn’t be given an opportunity to do so.
The counsellor confirmed that, if the woman moved to the other side of the country to live with the good Samaritan, Jane’s Place could support her via online consultations. The counsellor confirmed she had met with the currently allocated social worker and another social worker. She said that they said they would be in touch, but “failed to make further contact or return calls. We wanted to ascertain risks, so that we could work with [the mother] on that.”
Barrister: Is it your position that there was no follow up?
Counsellor: Yes.
Barrister: And [the mother] has no difficulty engaging with people she feels comfortable with?
Counsellor: No.
Barrister: How did you build a rapport with her?
Counsellor: I started by asking her what she needed in the room. It helped her see that I saw her as a person, not just a diagnosis.
The counsellor further stated: “Given her track record with me, I don’t see her not engaging. I see no reason why she shouldn’t be given an opportunity, given correct supports.”
The mother
The mother gave sworn evidence. She said she had five siblings. When she was 16 her sister died in tragic circumstances. She said she had attended a private boarding school on a full academic scholarship for six years. The woman recalled struggling with depression and anxiety since her teenage years, particularly after her sister died, and felt she did not reach her potential as a result.
She was diagnosed with EUPD in 2017 by a UK psychiatrist and with autism in 2023. After her first child was born in 2022, they lived in a mother and baby home in England for two months. She found the mother and baby unit placement difficult for a number of reasons, including the amount of rules and regulations to be followed. When asked how did she respond when she felt frustrated, the woman said that she sometimes found communication difficult: “I often get labelled as difficult or awkward. I don’t mean to come across as this.”
She admitted that she at times expressed suicidal ideation, including to support helplines, who in turn would alert emergency services. However, she said that ideation was “very different” to acting on an idea. She said she was living in “absolute terror and fear of Tusla”, referring to the now multiple sets of legal proceedings in being regarding her children.
She spoke of how her daughter was under an interim care order in Ireland and in parallel, there were Article 8 proceedings in being to return her daughter to the UK. The mother stated that “return” did not seem apt, as her daughter had been born in Ireland and had never been to the UK. She said she was terrified that her daughter would be put up for forced adoption in the UK, as had been the case with her first child, and that she would not see those two children again.
Since giving birth to Baby C, she said she had emailed the social worker three times asking for access with her second child, but there had been no response. She confirmed that she had never undergone a parental capacity assessment for her second or third child. She acknowledged that the Article 8 proceedings regarding her second child had put a PCA on hold.
She described the maternity hospital where she was residing with her son during the proceedings. She was in a semi-private room with three beds. In the ten days she had been there she said 15 to 20 women had been coming and going having babies, with their partners and children visiting. She said that she got on well with everyone and there was no direct supervision of her and her baby: “I have been solely responsible for his care. The staff only come in for routine checks.”
When asked about her experience with the maternity hospital team, the woman confirmed that initially she lacked trust. She felt she had been let down a lot, mostly by UK services. She disputed the suggestion that she had failed to engage with community mental health services in Ireland. She said she was referred to two community mental health services, Ushers Island (Jane’s Place) and the Mater Hospital mental health team.
She had expressed a preference to be under the Mater’s team, but said she was told “no”, that as she was technically homeless, she must attend Usher’s Quay, a homeless-specific service. The woman said that she was then put under the care of the Rotunda team: “I was told that, when under the perinatal team’s care, I could not engage with another mental health service.”
The woman explained that it took her a while to trust and engage: “All they had to go on were previous reports. They didn’t know me. I have never physically hurt anyone.”
The CFA’s barrister put it to the woman that in the UK she had been accused of assaulting an emergency services worker. The woman said that the incident arose when an ambulance team had entered her house without her permission. She said it had been a verbal assault on her part, as a reaction to them walking into the house.
After her autism diagnosis in 2023, the woman said she had begun to feel better able to understand her behaviour. The diagnosis had come with a lengthy report, which had helped her identify triggers and what could cause her to become heightened. For example, in her case new situations, unfamiliar environments, and talking to new people were particularly stressful. When asked what caused her to engage with the hospital team, the woman said it was because she asked them to do autism specific work with her: “Noone sat down with me, like the Rotunda did, before.”
She described how the hospital team had given her an occupational therapist and a mental health nurse. Results of assessments carried out highlighted her sensory issues and they then worked on those points. While going through the results, the woman described having a “lightbulb moment” in terms of understanding her condition. The findings were included in her care plan: “Life improved massively once I felt properly understood. I use these tools every day, constantly…to ground myself. This situation now [giving evidence in court] is horribly stressful.”
The woman’s barrister asked her if she would go to a mother and baby home, if a place came up, once the factual inaccuracies of the referrals were corrected? The woman said yes, she would.
The woman’s barrister highlighted how the woman’s access worker, who supervised contact with her daughter, said that she believed the woman would succeed in a mother and baby unit. Exploring another option, the barrister asked the woman about the midwife who had offered to take her and the baby in. The woman confirmed that they met on Facebook and that the midwife in question “did a lot to try to help people”. The woman said that she would be prepared to live under a supervision order if she could live with the midwife.
She said: “My other two children have been taken. I don’t feel I have been given a chance. A lot of the stress has been due to losing the kids. Since my daughter, I have really tried to turn things around and try to get that chance. I believe I will never see my first child again.”
The woman’s barrister asked her about another option tabled by her legal team, an emergency parental capacity assessment by Attuned:
Barrister: If you were deemed suitable by Attuned, would you go?
Mother: Yes, I’ll do whatever. I love my children.
Barrister: Are you a danger to Baby C?
Mother: No.
Barrister: Have you ever assaulted your children?
Mother: No, never.
The woman confirmed that a full care plan has been made for her by Jane’s Place: “They took time to look at the autism. They have catered to autism as a disability.”
Barrister: Do you feel the CFA has extended you the same courtesy?
Mother: Not really.
Barrister: If [Baby C] is in your care and you feel overwhelmed, what would you do?
Mother: I haven’t attempted self-harm or suicide in a number of years. I have learned skills and done a number of courses.
The woman said she had completed cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), DBT, and parenting
courses online, as well as Aware’s mental health resilience course. She was on a waiting list
for a parenting under pressure (PUP) programme. She said she felt able to manage her
emotions and to calm. She said she knew where to seek help, and confirmed that she would
work with the CFA.
The woman’s barrister put choices to the mother: 1. Go to live with the midwife, under a supervision order, and complete a PCA; 2. Go to Atuned today and undergo an emergency assessment in their supervised residential unit; 3. Return to emergency accommodation with Baby C, under a supervision order.
The woman said she would abide by any of those options: “I’m willing to do anything to be given a chance here.” The woman confirmed that she was number 17 on the Dublin City Council housing list.
The CFA’s barrister asked the woman if she accepted her diagnoses. The woman said that she did, and that she would need support for a long time. She said her plan was to continue to see the Jane’s Place counsellor, the Rotunda Perinatal Team, and continue her self-learning through courses and specifically the Aware resilience training she completed. The CFA’s barrister put it to the woman that there is a lot of stress in caring for a newborn, that she was vulnerable to stress, and did not have coping skills. The woman agreed with the first two points, but did not agree that she did not have coping skills.
“[Baby C] is two weeks old tomorrow. This is an incredibly stressful time. I am grieving my first child [referring to the forced adoption], and there are ongoing Article 8 legal proceedings regarding [Baby B], and I am before you now in court. I have learned strategies to deal with this and I am dealing with it.”
The woman noted that, on one occasion at access with Baby B, she had got upset. She said she left the room and the child did not see her cry. The CFA’s barrister asked: “What do you need now?” “To continue on my care plan, which is working well.”
The CFA’s barrister referred to a letter of discharge from the consultant psychiatrist at the Mater, citing that the woman was discharged due to her lack of engagement. The woman replied: “It wasn’t disengagement. I was under the care of the Rotunda. I have never met that consultant [in the Mater] and I have not seen his report.”
On this point, the woman said it was a case of duplication of services, not non-engagement. When asked about the dead pets in her freezer in the UK, the woman accepted it was “not exactly normal, but is not illegal,” she said.
The judge asked the woman about what steps she took in the UK to access DBT. The woman said that she had been “trying to access all possible services. I did try my best to get DBT. I tried to ask lots of GPs for DBT.”
A midwife, who had offered to take the mother and baby into her home
The ninth witness had become aware of the woman’s plight on Facebook and offered to help. She had been a qualified midwife since 2014 with relevant perinatal mental health training. She held Tusla certification to be a mandated person and was Children First trained, HSE trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults, and Garda vetted.
The woman lived with her husband and five children (ranging in ages from 18 to 5) in an eight-bedroomed house. She said there were three spare bedrooms on the ground floor of their home, in which she regularly allowed people in need to stay, such as Ukrainian women and children. She had been heavily involved in the volunteer response to the Ukrainian war, and also ran her local parish’s food and clothes bank.
She described how she first encountered the mother on Facebook when she was looking for a safe place to stay. She had spoken to her on the phone and visited her in hospital twice since the birth of Baby C. On meeting, she said she immediately liked the mother: “I was horrified that she had lost two babies already. It seemed like a no brainer to me that she should go to a mother and baby unit.”
She said that the mother was honest with her “warts and all” regarding the past. She could see the scars from self-harm on the woman’s arms. The woman, who also fostered puppies, said that she had wanted to foster before, but needed to wait until her youngest child was over two years of age before being eligible to be assessed to be a foster carer. When asked what was the plan regarding this mother, the woman said: “She can come home with me today if she wants. I don’t need anything from her.”
The woman said that a meeting with the CFA earlier in the week had left her in tears. She said it was suggested to her that she would be putting her own children in harm’s way by letting this mother and baby into their home. The woman said she did possess insight into the possible risks. She felt equipped to spot signs of escalation and would act appropriately if needed, for example by calling the Gardaí or bringing the mother and or child to A&E if needed: “I want to work hand in hand with Tusla, to not separate mother and baby.”
The CFA’s barrister put it to the woman that she would not be able to supervise the mother and baby 24/7. The woman believed that she would be able to.
“I think my house is a more normal environment. She would get the opportunity to see me parent. People congregate at my house; it’s lovely and warm. I live at the end of a cul de sac in a rural community, and there are eight neighbours and me on WhatsApp to support each other.
“To me, the last resort should be to separate a mother and baby. Prisons don’t separate a mother and baby. Even puppies should not be separated from their mother too early. I think it’s inhumane. I don’t we’ve tried everything.”
Referring to Tusla’s questioning of her motivation, the woman explained: “it’s in our family.” She said that two close relatives worked with statutory and non-statutory children’s rights organisations.
The solicitor for the GAL asked the woman if she had experienced the mother’s mood “accelerating”. The woman confirmed that she had never had an argument with the mother, but confirmed that they had agreed that the woman could take Baby C at night. The woman said she would ensure that the mother immediately linked in with the specialist perinatal mental health team in her area. The woman said that she personally knew the team, from her own work as a nurse, and believed that the rural service had more time and resources to offer than a Dublin inner city one.
The GAL’s solicitor put it to the woman that, in law, she was a perfect stranger to the mother, and would have no power to restrain her if she did decide to not go and live with her, for instance. The woman was adamant that, if anything happened, she would not hesitate to seek help immediately.
The judge asked the woman to confirm whether she had been prepared to take the mother and baby home from the Rotunda. The woman clarified that she thought perhaps it would be all right to take them home for the weekend, in between court days. When the hospital consultant confirmed that they were not allowed to leave, the woman said she had no intention of removing them from the hospital. The judge reminded the woman that these were in camera proceedings and that nothing could be posted on social media.
That concluded the mother’s case. The GAL’s solicitor then called a final witness, the GAL.
The guardian ad litem
The final witness was the guardian ad litem (GAL). She was also Baby B’s GAL. She had been appointed to Baby C a week before court. She said she had been alarmed at the difference between the reports and the mother’s narrative, and the “array and frequency” of referrals regarding Baby C. The GAL said that access with Baby B was one of the easiest ones on her books. “Access [with Baby B] is really good and strong. I have seen her with Baby B. She is very caring, loving, and focuses on her [Baby B’s] development.”
The GAL said that the reports detailed “significant periods of dysregulation” and she worried that the mother was “masking”. The GAL said that she would not be recommending the return of Baby B, and that Baby C had “a higher level of need for protection”, referring to his tender age. When asked for her views on a mother and baby unit, the GAL said: “It is about taking a chance. I do not advise taking a chance. You don’t take a risk on a brand new baby.”
The GAL said twice that she was not a mental health professional. She confirmed the need for a PCA. Having previously worked in the area of risk assessments, the GAL said there was a need to be very specific and that the mental health concerns “should not be minimised”. She said that the “good Samaritan” witness’s proposal was “ludicrous”.
The barrister for the mother said to the GAL: “It’s important the correct narrative be put forward.”
She challenged the GAL on the fact that she had not visited the baby since his birth, and questioned the fact that the GAL was basing her own report on the social worker’s report: “The danger is, when we all have to act fast [in such proceedings], the narrative won’t be correct.”
The barrister for the mother reiterated how the social worker’s report did not state that the UK allegations were held to be “unfounded”, that at least one of the referrals could be discredited (referring to the Focus Ireland referral), and the most recent mental health report had not been included with the very last-minute referrals to mother and baby homes.
The barrister for the mother asked the GAL had she had met with the Rotunda team. She replied she had not. Had she spoken to Jane’s Place? She had not. The GAL confirmed that she did not speak to anyone and only relied on written reports in preparing her report for this hearing.
The barrister asked had she at least met the mother? The GAL said she had not, because she did not want to “stress Mum”. She said she had contact with the mother over the past year at access for Baby B.
Barrister: Do you accept there is an obligation to exhaust all other options before hitting the nuclear option of separating a mother and baby?
GAL: Yes, but I am not satisfied that risk has been fully explored.
Barrister: Have you considered the impact on Baby C if breastfeeding is stopped today?
GAL: Yes, which is why I have recommended an immediate strategy meeting.
The judge asked the GAL what did she say should happen regarding assessment if an ICO was granted. She said she would like to see a parenting capacity assessment and updated psychiatric assessment. She said it was unfortunate that there had not been clarity due to the legal proceedings regarding Baby B, where there had been no parenting capacity assessment due to the desire to avoid the duplication of assessments if she was sent to the UK.
That ended both sides’ evidence. The barristers for the CFA and mother made closing remarks.
Barristers’ Closing Remarks
The CFA’s barrister said that the threshold set out in section 17 of the Act was met due to concerns regarding the mother’s mental health and alleged lack of engagement. She referred to s.24 (d) and (e) of the Act, the “psychological, emotional needs of the child” and “protection of the child’s safety and psychological wellbeing”. She referred to Article 42A of the Constitution, which demands that “the best interests of the child be the paramount consideration”. She said that a re-referral to mother and baby units was not off the table, but the focus was on Baby C leaving the hospital.
In her closing remarks, the mother’s barrister said that a function of the CFA is that it “shall” provide family support services, especially in circumstances where a baby stands to be separated from his mother. She stressed that consideration of a mother and baby home was only given after the ICO application had commenced. She said that the fact the mother had a disability (autism) gave the CFA further mandatory obligation as a state body.
“Otherwise, they are in breach of a convention ratified by Ireland”, referring to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Ireland’s Disability Act 2005 (which ratified that convention). She referred to Article 23(4) of the Convention, which states that state parties will not separate a child and family “on the basis of the disability of either the child or one of both parents”, and respect for home and family life. She said the CFA had failed both baby and mother. Citing the Supreme Court decision in the “Baby Ann” case, N v HSE [2006], she said Baby C’s best interests would be best secured with his natural family.
The mother’s barrister addressed the issue of proportionality, and suggested that it was not proportionate to separate Baby C from his mother. She said there was evidence of stabilisation and engagement with two mental health services (referring to the Rotunda and Jane’s Place), compliance with medication, and ongoing commitment by the mother. She suggested that the court could find the Good Samaritan witness to be an appropriate person to support the mother and baby. She said that the court had heard no evidence of current or immediate risk of harm to Baby C.
She said an ICO would be disproportionate on the basis that an assessment was necessary before such decisions are made. Professionals must act with utmost integrity and sympathy, and not merely present a professional appearance. “In this case, that did not happen.” She asked the court to refuse the CFA’s application.
Judge’s Decision
The judge rose for a time and returned to give his decision. He said this application pertained to the third baby of a UK national mother. He noted that Baby A was taken into care by UK social services at birth and was since adopted. He noted that Baby B was born in Ireland and was subject of an Article 8 application, which was currently before the High Court. He said that the mother had a diagnosis of EUPD. A UK psychiatrist identified DBT as a suitable therapy, but it had not been available. This application had been listed for one day, but was heard over three days.
The judge said that the mother had urged the court to disregard previous history and demonstrated care of her son in hospital. The judge said that, even if he did disregard the first two children, he could not disregard the referrals made during this pregnancy. He said that the application was grounded on the evidence of the allocated social worker, and was supported by the GAL. He said that the court made no criticism of the GAL for not visiting Baby C.
He said that the higher courts had confirmed that separating a mother and baby should be a last resort, the “nuclear option”. The onus was on the CFA to have demonstrated that all other options had been explored and eliminated. Three mother and baby homes had been canvassed. DBT had not been adequately available and the maternity hospital did not carry out parental capacity assessments. “The court can only deal with the actuality of cases as presented.”
He said that the court was faced with a “cliff edge decision”, the child having been ready for discharge for over a week. He noted the court’s obligation under s.24 of the 1991 Act, the child’s rights under Article 42A of the Constitution, the “aspirations of Mum and good intentions” of the midwife who had offered to take her and the baby into her home. “It would be a leap of faith to refuse the application.”
He said this would be tantamount to negligent. On that basis, the judge deemed that the threshold had been met. He directed that a strategy meeting should be held, as recommended by the GAL, and re-referral to mother and baby homes be considered. He granted an ancillary application under s.35 of the Act, to allow Gardaí to assist in the removal of Baby C, if required. He granted an initial ICO for a month.
The case remains before the courts.