A judge in the Dublin Metropolitan District Court made care orders to the age of 18 for six young children. A number of the children had additional needs. The judge had adjourned the case for a period of two weeks in order to prepare his judgment.
The parents were present in court.
Summarising his judgment, the judge said that the mother had consented to care orders for a period of between two and four years and the father had consented to a period of between two and five years but that he wanted to work on reunification. The court had been told that the parents were not in a relationship.
The guardian ad litem (GAL) supported a full care order application for all of the children.
The judge recalled that a large number of reports had been brought before the court and evidence had been heard from ten witnesses.
A section 23 application (regarding evidence from a child) had been brought for one of the children, and the parties had felt it was not in the best interests of the child for him to be brought to court to give evidence and therefore there was a caution around any weight to be given to the statements made by him.
The judge said that there had been a long history of social work involvement and the family had been known to the social workers for ten years. The key issues of concern had been around the children’s welfare, neglect, substance abuse, the on/off relationship between the parents, domestic violence and the lack of a safe environment.
The court said that interim care orders had been in place for two years. The mother had attended a mother and baby home with one of the children and both parents had undergone parental capacity assessments (PCAs). The judge referred to one of the reports, which had included seven recommendations including engaging in therapies and around access arrangements. He said that the father did not currently have access due to inconsistencies.
The judge summarised the position of all of the children, who ranged in age from eight to one year old. He said that the eldest child had been in a number of placements since he went into care and the placement he was currently in was a disability placement, even though he did not have a disability. The child was still awaiting an assessment of need.
The next child had been in four different placements and was also awaiting an assessment of need and was experiencing speech and language delays. The next two children had also experienced placement breakdowns but they were having some access with the mother and limited access with the father.
The second youngest child was having a number of assessments and the court had heard she could become dysregulated at times.
The judge said that the onus was on the CFA to prove that the care order was both necessary and proportionate. Reference was made to Article 42 (a) of the Irish Constitution which said a break up of the family unit had to be an “exceptional measure”. He also referred to Section 24 of the Child Care Act 1991 and the need to consider the “best interests” of the children.
He said in making his decision he had listened to the GAL and he had considered the rights and duties of the parents. He said the parents had acknowledged that they were not in a position to care for the children and had shown some level of insight and it was clear they loved their children. He said the evidence was difficult to hear and the court process was very challenging and stressful. The parents were making efforts and the father had given evidence during the course of the care order proceedings.
The judge said he was satisfied that the threshold had been met and that orders to 18 were proportionate. The children had been in care for just over two years and had experienced a number of placement changes. The court was of the view that short orders were not in the best interests of the children.
He said the CFA should support both parents and that the journey to and from access should be supported by the CFA. The father’s counselling should be supported and sibling access should happen at least four times a year.
He made the usual directions as to when the case should be re-entered.
He listed the care orders to be reviewed in 2026 and said long-term matching should be completed within six months.
The court directed that the assessment of need be completed for the eldest child. He said that matter should remain before the court and if necessary, the matter would be escalated to the Regional Chief Officer for a written response as there had been little or no progress on the matter for almost a year.
The GAL was to remain in place for a number of weeks.
Dates were allocated for the care order review for the children in 2026.