A full care order to 18 was granted in the District Court for an infant girl, following a “straightforward” application by the Child and Family Agency (CFA). At the outset of the hearing, the CFA solicitor said the matter was not complex, noting the mother was consenting to the application and was currently incarcerated.
The mother’s solicitor confirmed his client’s consent. He said the child’s father had not been identified. On their last meeting, the mother had expressed a lot of anxiety about the court process, which she found very stressful. Although she had initially hoped to attend the hearing, she later decided against it.
He said the mother was satisfied with the standard of care being provided to her child. She had accepted that she was struggling with serious addiction issues and that her lifestyle was “chaotic.” She was also facing some minor criminal charges. The solicitor added that the mother had also described recent progress, saying she had been engaging well with prison services and hoped to maintain phone contact with her child. She had also expressed a wish for reunification in the future.
While she had not given specific instructions about the length of the care order, her solicitor said she understood it could be made until the child reached 18. She had accepted that it was likely the full order would be granted.
The social worker gave evidence that the infant had come into care at birth. She had been placed with her maternal aunt, who remained her foster carer. The witness said there were no concerns about the placement and it had been long-term matched. The child was thriving, sociable and doing very well overall. The foster carer was “fully dedicated” and the placement was strongly supported by everyone involved.
Because the foster carer was a single carer, the child was attending crèche. The social worker said she had last met the child in April and had found her to be “happy and bubbly.”
She said some access between the infant and the mother had taken place, but noted that phone contact was particularly difficult for a very young child. A video call was scheduled for June, but the witness said she expected this to be brief due to the challenges involved.
In relation to the mother’s background, the social worker said she had struggled with addiction since 2003. While she had previously engaged with various support services, this engagement had not been sustained, and there had been no significant change in her circumstances. She had not been able to maintain ongoing contact with the social work team. The witness believed that a shorter order would not be appropriate given the mother’s lengthy history of substance misuse and involvement in criminal activity.
When asked by the judge how long the mother would remain in prison, the witness said she did not know, as that information had not been provided by the prison.
The guardian ad litem (GAL) said she was supporting the application. She said the child was “settled and happy” in her foster placement and that it was clearly an appropriate environment for her. She described a recent visit as “very pleasant” and said the foster carer was highly attentive to the child’s needs.
She said she had met with the mother once. During that meeting, it had been clear to her that the mother was not in a position to have a meaningful or sustained conversation about the infant. A second meeting had been arranged, but the mother had not attended.
While the mother had expressed a desire to have access and to see her daughter, this had not been consistent. The GAL said that any future access would need to be stable and regular. The foster carer had indicated her willingness to support this if it could be arranged appropriately.
The GAL agreed this was a “straightforward” case and if the court granted the order, she did not think it would require ongoing court review.
Having considered all of the evidence, the judge said he was satisfied that a full care order was necessary and proportionate in the circumstances. He acknowledged that it had not been an easy decision for the mother to face the reality of her child being taken into long-term care. However, he said he was satisfied that the infant was receiving excellent care in her current placement.
He emphasised the importance of the child being able to grow up without carrying the burden of feeling like a “child in care,” as so many other children did.
The court granted the care order to 18. The GAL was discharged and the judge recorded that no further court review was necessary given the straightforward nature of the case.