A district court judge in a provincial city reserved her decision in an application by the Child and Family Agency (CFA) for a care order until eighteen for an infant who had been in care since shortly after their birth. An interim care order had been granted earlier by the district court.
The mother’s lawyer said she accepted supports were needed before she could care for her daughter but she proposed a more limited order. The mother believed a full order would mean abandoning her child.
Psychologist evidence
A psychologist said he had assessed the mother’s intelligence quotient (IQ) and adaptive functioning. She had presented with reasonable eye contact and had attended assessment with a court-appointed advocate. The CFA lawyer asked about her mental state and the psychologist said she had engaged reasonably, was oriented to time and place, and had interacted well. The psychologist said the mother had described challenging early life events, including a suicide attempt. He had followed up on suicidality, but not through a structured assessment and recommended adult mental health engagement.
The mother described a rural upbringing with physical and emotional abuse from her parents, derogatory terms, belittlement by her father, her mother’s breakdown, and a sexual assault that had led to an investigation elsewhere, where she felt untreated. She had no family contact except with a cousin.
The mother told the psychologist that she had attended local school initially, before moving to a specialist school in a nearby city, followed by training at a disabilities centre, which she had left after bullying by her brother.
The psychologist stated that the family home had been difficult. The maternal grandfather had reacted angrily to the pregnancy, telling his daughter to kill herself. Her maternal grandmother had been supportive but deferential to her husband.
The psychologist expressed concerns about suicidal ideation. The mother had said her daughter gave her reason to live, without whom she would probably kill herself. She had told the psychologist that she had met the father of her child online. They had spent an evening in a local bed-and-breakfast. He had ceased contact after learning of the pregnancy.
The psychologist said the mother’s IQ was 59 (extremely low, at the 0.3 percentile). An adaptive behaviour assessment by her key worker had placed her in the extremely low range, but she had self-reported as having average adaptive functioning. The psychologist stated that this would present challenges for daily life, including navigating social situations, saving money, employment, world navigation, making her vulnerable to misreading cues.
The psychologist stated that PTSD scores indicated clinical symptoms. He diagnosed mild intellectual disability and PTSD symptoms. The discrepancy in adaptive functioning reports was significant, he believed the key worker’s was more reflective of the mother’s ability, while she overestimated her abilities. He recommended mental health engagement, DBT for suicidality, PTSD therapy, and tailored evidence-based interventions for her cognitive profile. He stated that education or employment would need tailoring. Instructions or tasks would need broken-down instructions, set goals, predictable routines/locations, visual schedules, and simple language.
The mother’s lawyer asked about scores. The psychologist stated that the mother’s verbal comprehension was 72, perceptual reasoning was 69, working memory was 60, which were relative strengths. The psychologist accepted that PTSD could affect IQ but said he believed the mother’s engagement was representative of her profile.
The mother’s lawyer said she had had no support during pregnancy, had become homeless after leaving home, and had suffered extreme trauma from interventions. The psychologist accepted this could impact adaptive scoring.
The guardian ad litem’s (GAL) lawyer asked about access. The psychologist said access would require supervision.
Social worker evidence
The social worker said little was known about the father, as the couple had met online. She said the mother had had a difficult upbringing, with no family contact, except some contact from maternal aunts. During her pregnancy, concerns had arisen about the mother’s mental health, parenting ability and homelessness. An interim care order had been granted shortly after the birth. The mother had not been known to the CFA before, and this was likely due to her rural childhood, the court heard.
The CFA wanted engagement with homeless and primary care services, which were previously absent. The mother had been evicted from accommodation previously for anti-social behaviour and was now in her own room in other accommodation.
The social worker stated that access occurred twice weekly, but this had been reduced to once weekly for ninety minutes before Christmas. The social worker stated that it was clear the mother loved her child but she struggled with cues, she continued to hold her child like a newborn baby, she struggled to initiate contact, or follow the child’s leads.
The social worker stated that recently the mother’s physical presentation and health had declined. She had been seen with facial cuts, dirty clothes, and undisclosed injuries. The social worker stated that concerns existed about her vulnerability in homeless accommodation.
The social worker stated that she would have significant concerns about safe care of the child without the order. She stated that she had empathy for the mother but said she required much support, considering her developmental needs. She said the mother perceived criticism negatively, became defensive if help seemed forceful, and at the time the baptism was organised, she had become verbally abusive via messages.
The court heard that the child’s current foster placement was available long-term, and the CFA wanted the child to remain there.
The mother’s lawyer asked if a long-term order was sought for a child when she had not even reached six months of age and the social worker confirmed that it had. The mother had recently withdrawn consent for the CFA to seek information from other services. The social worker was unaware of perinatal mental health engagement by the mother.
The GAL’s lawyer asked about pre-birth engagement, which the social worker said was limited with mental health and primary care. The social worker did not believe the mother could keep herself or the child safe. No material changes had occurred since the child in care review.
Social care leader evidence
A social care leader specialising in circles of security and attachment therapy said she had been involved in the case for some time. She stated that the mother was affectionate but sometimes closed off.
She said that when she informed the mother of the christening, the mother had left access immediately and generally struggled with separation. The social care leader stated that she had concerns about the mother’s defensiveness and withdrawal. It was difficult to approach issues.
The mother’s lawyer asked about presentation. The social care leader said it depended, but accepted that secure accommodation would help.
The GAL’s lawyer asked about access visits. The social care leader accepted that in over twenty access visits there had been no improvement. She did not believe full-time care was possible.
GAL’s evidence
The GAL said the mother was a lovely young lady with a difficult start in life. She said her father had been abusive. She believed the mother would benefit from a tailored parenting course, as groups could be intimidating.
The GAL said that initial child development concerns she had had abated in foster care. She stated that the mother could not keep the baby safe. A long-term order was appropriate, and without it uncertainty would affect long-term care planning. She said that every child needed permanency and stability.
The mother’s lawyer asked about the child understanding permanency. The GAL said the child lacked capacity to understand this concept, but a longer order served the child’s best interests and development.
The GAL stated that the mother had a limited support network and this further restricted her care ability. The GAL said “the best future is the past” and the mother had a complicated relationship with aunts who could provide some support.
Conclusion
The lawyer for the CFA said the psychologist had given evidence of the mother’s mild intellectual disability, recommending 13 various supports. She noted that access had not improved. The mother had not engaged with supports she had been offered, she could not keep herself safe, and in the social worker’s view, she could not keep the baby safe. A long-term order was necessary, according to the CFA lawyer. The lawyer noted that the GAL supported the application. The CFA lawyer asked the judge for an order to the age of 18 under section 18 of the Childcare Act 1991 and asked the court to consider section 24 of the Act (requiring the welfare of the child to be paramount).
The GAL’s lawyer said it was a sad case, and if the mother had had a different start in life she might have had a different outcome, but the child faced significant risk if returned to the mother.
The mother’s lawyer said her client had endured huge upheaval in her life. She had engaged fully with the psychologist. She wanted the best for her daughter and to have a relationship with her. She was engaged with primary care services, living in secure accommodation, seeking employment, and engaged with perinatal mental health.
The mother’s lawyer said she regarded this as “pre-emptive strike” by the CFA. She cited passages from the cases of PH and LHT v CFA [2016] IEHC 106 and CFA v NK [2014] IEDC 14. The lawyer stated that the order sought was unreasonable, as the court could not speculate that the mother cannot improve. The lawyer stated that no parenting capacity assessment had been carried out by the CFA.
The judge extended the interim care order for two months and adjourned the matter to consider her decision on the care order.