Dublin District Court granted a care order until the age of 18 for a 10-month-old baby who had had little contact with her parents, both drug users, since birth. The parents were not legally represented but were on notice of the care order application. They had previously been represented but they had failed to provide instructions or communicate properly with their legal teams.
The social worker told the court the key areas of concern for both parents was ongoing drug misuse of benzos, opiates and methadone. The mother had not participated in the antenatal supports prior to the baby being born and the father was in active drug use before the child was born. At birth, the child tested positive for both methadone and cocaine. The court was told that the child had not seen her parents since she had been discharged from the hospital after her birth.
The social worker said that there had been no engagement from the mother. Registered post had been returned undelivered and a number of telephone calls had been made to the mother. She did answer on occasion but did not call back.
The social worker was asked to detail the engagement she had with the father and again she said he had been sent registered letters and that she had tried to reach him by telephone but he was uncontactable. Owing to the ongoing drug use a parental capacity assessment had not been considered.
The social worker was asked to outline any engagement with other professionals and she said that there had been no attendance by the mother at antenatal clinics, there was no engagement with drug rehabilitation and no engagement with the social work department. There was a history with the social work department regarding two other children and the key concerns regarding them were physical abuse, drug abuse and poor school attendance.
The social worker confirmed that the child’s current foster placement was available long term if that was needed. The court received an update on the child and her development. She was due to see an ENT specialist but not until she reached two years of age.
The social worker was asked about plans for creche attendance but that was deemed inappropriate at the moment due to her age. While the child had no contact with her parents, the social worker was hopeful that sibling access could be arranged in due course along with access with her paternal grandfather.
The GAL had been appointed earlier in the year and she told the court the child was getting on exceptionally well in her placement and was meeting all of her milestones. The placement was meeting her needs. The foster carers were first time foster carers but they were doing well. There was also a very positive relationship with the GP and the GP was very proactive in relation to the child’s medical needs.
The GAL said she had had no success in contacting the mother and very little contact with the father. She said the father had participated in some initial meetings early in the proceedings but did not show up and was uncontactable. He had also not provided any legal instructions.
It was agreed that the framework for re-engagement was that the parents needed to attend a series of meetings with the social workers in order to show commitment before any face- to-face access meetings could take place.
The GAL commended the social work team on managing the case well. She recommended that sibling contact should be supported and that perhaps a photograph be provided of the child’s paternal grandfather. She was of the opinion that a care order to 18 was both necessary and proportionate.
The judge said that he had heard the evidence and reviewed the social work report and the care plan. He said it was a sad case where there was a young baby, a care order was being granted to 18 and that the child had little or no contact with her parents since birth.
He said it was a reassurance to the court that she was placed in a loving, caring environment and that she was meeting her developmental milestones.
The judge said he did not take the decision lightly to make the care order to 18 but he was satisfied that the threshold was met and that it was both necessary and proportionate to grant the care order to 18.
He requested that a letter be provided by the CFA confirming that they understood the directions attaching to the care order, including that if the placement was not long term matched the matter would come back to court.
The GAL was discharged from the end of the month to allow a close off meeting to take place with the foster carers.