The judge in a provincial District Court granted a twelve-month care order in respect of a four-month-old baby girl whose parents had very entrenched addiction issues and who had demonstrated very poor parenting. The parents were not in court or represented.
The Child and Family Agency’s (CFA’s) solicitor told the court that the baby’s parents were engaging with the Agency, but that neither of them had instructed a solicitor or had attended court to date. The baby was subject of an interim care order at the time of the application.
The CFA’s solicitor told the court that both parents had other children who were in care. The mother had been known to the Social Work Department for seven years and she had a son, now seven years of age, and another daughter, who were both in long term care. There was very little contact between these children and their mother.
The social worker said that the mother had demonstrated very poor parenting skills. Her own mother had contacted the CFA regarding the young baby.
The baby’s father also had two children of his own – one was now an adult and the other was in their late teens. These children were in the care of their mother. He also had a number of other younger children who were in care in general placements.
The baby’s father suffered from very serious addiction issues including use of heroin and crack cocaine. There had been some concerns relating to violence and homelessness. His access with his older children had been sporadic at best, but he had no access at the time of the hearing.
There had been a number of referrals made, going back over five months. Both parents, and specifically the mother, had continued to take Class A drugs even during the pregnancy. The social worker had been worried that the baby would be born safely. The social worker was also concerned that the mother was HIV positive and that she had stopped taking her medication during the pregnancy. The head obstetrician had said that the risks to the baby had been very high.
Shortly before the birth of the baby, the mother had disengaged from the Social Work Department. More recently, the parents had started to reengage again. However, the social worker was not sure how meaningful the engagement was, she had not been able to contact the mother for the previous five days. She was prepared to facilitate access, but she hadn’t heard from the mother. She would keep trying to make contact.
The baby had been born with traces of cocaine in her system, but she seemed to be doing well. There were also concerns that the baby had not contracted HIV. The social worker said that it would be a further two weeks before they would be certain about this. However, the baby had settled well in a lovely foster placement and was doing very well. The public nurse had been very happy with the baby’s progress.
The social worker said that the parents had not made any adjustments nor had they given any indication of changing their ways. The parents would have to commit “to stepping away from chaos”.
She said that the application before the court was for a 12-month care order. This was the minimum time required even if the mother did everything necessary to meet the Social Work Departments requirements for reunification.
The judge asked the social worker whether, in the circumstances where the risk to the child was at a maximum and where she had seen no engagement or even a prospect of engagement, was this not a case for the Agency to make an application for a Care Order to majority or at least a much longer period that 12 months. Were there any circumstances in which the Social Work Department was prepared to make such an application?
The social worker replied that the system was very slow to do this in Ireland. She thought it had to do with our history. She said it was much more common in England, but that in Ireland it was a much slower process and that it was important to ensure that parents were afforded all due process to give them a chance. However, she said that the Social Work Department would be engaging in parallel planning with foster carers in the meantime in respect of long-term placement. She foresaw a longer-term care order application being made in respect of the baby in the future.
Following consideration of the affidavit and oral evidence presented by the CFA, the judge granted the Care Order in respect of the baby for 12 months. He noted that the application had been made on notice to the child’s parents who had not been present or represented at the proceedings. He was satisfied that the order was necessary and proportionate. He directed that access be allowed at the discretion of the Agency and that there would be a review of the Care Order in six months’ time.