A judge in Dublin District Court granted a full care order for an infant until the age of 18. The infant was facing possible cognitive and developmental issues due to in utero experiences, and the mother, who was not in court, had been a child in care, was homeless, suffered from mental health problems and substance abuse, and had two older children in care.
The previously allocated social worker was called to give evidence and she told the court that there were two other older children who were already in long term care. She said the mother herself had been a child in care. The primary concerns of the CFA were around substance misuse and the mother’s mental health. The social worker said continuous efforts had been made to engage with the mother.
She said that a pre-birth conference had taken place and neither parent had attended. She told the court that the mother had attended minimal antenatal appointments and had in fact been living on the streets.
She gave evidence that when the initial interim care order had been applied for the parents had engaged and she had met with the mother at the maternity hospital the day after the birth however, there were still concerns regarding drug use and her engagement deteriorated thereafter. She said the mother had attended the first initial ICO application and she had last met with the mother some four to five months previously. She said the mother was very dysregulated and she had discussed the DNA results with her.
She said the mother had attended two to three access visits but that they had been chaotic. She said it was likely that the respondent was not the father of the child but the mother had not identified any other potential fathers. She said there were concerns regarding domestic violence between the mother and the potential father. She said she had seen the respondent hit the mother on two occasions and he was very agitated.
The mother was homeless but did not access homeless accommodation. She said the partner had supported housing and at times she was with him otherwise she was on the streets.
The social worker said there had been no material changes during the proceedings and that they had not been able to stabilise.
The current allocated social worker was also asked to give evidence. She outlined the multiple attempts she had made to contact the mother. She said she had made contact the previous week but she had never met the mother in person since she had been allocated to the case some three months previous. She said she had arranged a taxi for her to go to a meeting but she did not go to the meeting.
She gave evidence that she had previously spoken to the mother via a centre for homeless people and she said she had met the father. She said the parents were aware of the proceedings that were happening but they did not have any fixed abode. Dublin City Council did not know where the mother was. She said information regarding the case had been sent to the centre providing services for the homeless. She said that when she had spoken to her about the court proceedings she was highly dysregulated and heightened, and she’d had a period of no fixed abode.
She said the mother had been barred from some of the housing accommodation services due to antisocial behaviour although she did attend the homeless clinic regularly. She said the doctor in the clinic had advised that she was using substances including cocaine, crack, methadone, heroin and street tablets. The view was that she was living a chaotic lifestyle and was not in a position to care for the child. She also had a cognitive disability and an enduring brain injury which was affecting her reasoning abilities. A previous parental capacity assessment had said that she was easily stressed and quickly became dysregulated.
The social worker confirmed that the carers were the same carers since the child was born. She said the child had had a viral illness and was taking antiviral medications which had impacted her hearing, her eyesight, her kidneys and her liver. She was in the NICU for two and a half weeks and she would require speech and language therapies. It was the professionals’ view that she may have cognitive issues and development issues in the future due to her birth circumstances. The court was told that she was currently under a multidisciplinary team. There were concerns about a black spot on her head and she was also doing exercises for her neck.
The social worker said that the mother was presenting with the same challenges as had happened with the two older children and that unfortunately she was still chaotic, still homeless and still having issues with her mental health, still using substances and still volatile.
She also said that the previous parenting capacity assessment highlighted the same concerns.
The CFA solicitor asked the social worker about the GAL’s recommendations and she advised that the file would not transfer to another area until a social worker was allocated. She also referred to an aftercare review which would become due around the child’s 17th birthday. In relation to the paediatric review, she said the child had been seen by the doctor in the maternity hospital. In relation to access she said the mother would need to link in with the social work team and analysis would be needed to be provided before any access could take place
The GAL was called to give evidence and she had prepared a report. The GAL was supporting a care order to 18 and she said it was appropriate to make for the court to make that order.
She gave evidence that the mother’s difficulties were well known to the court. She said she had met with the mother the previous week and that she was taking cannabis, crack, street drugs and, due to her cognitive syndrome, her lack of capacity to look after the child was more acute. She said unfortunately the mother could not commit to times or planning and could not sustain any changes. She said that there had been some access with one of the older children.
She said she was worried about the child’s exposure to drugs and the impact on her health and she said her brothers had also suffered and attended specialists regarding their eyes. She said any child in care reviews would be informed by any neurological issues including assessment for ADHD and said the foster carers should be supported regarding any behavioural issues. She said the carers could hold the child long term. She had asked for a review to take place prior to the child joining junior infants and for a further court review to take place after the next child in care review and the GAL would remain appointed until such time.
The judge on hearing the evidence, referred to the fact that it was an uncontested hearing and the father was unknown and it was likely that the putative father was not the father. He also noted that the mother was not present but had had a long history with the social work department and that a full care order had been made in respect of two older children in the family.
He referred to the fact that the mother had been a child in care herself, and she had a long history with drugs, mental illness and homelessness. He said it was desperately sad that no parent was present and that the child in question was less than one year old. He said the absence spoke volumes, but he was not being critical of the mother in relation to that matter.
He said he had no hesitation in granting the care order and noted that the grounds and threshold were met and that the child was placed in a loving caring foster placement. He noted that she would need significant development review and paediatric interventions due to in utero experiences. He granted the care order to 18 and the relevant review dates were set.