A care order until the age of 18 was granted by a judge in the District Court for a 15-month -old infant where both parents were only starting on their road to recovery from addiction and where neither parent had seen the child since birth. However, both were in court and were represented. They both supported a short care order.
The CFA brought an application seeking a care order to 18 for the baby. The CFA solicitor indicated that there had been sporadic engagement from the parents and that this was the third time that the CFA had sought to run the care order application. The court was told that the guardian ad litem was supporting the application.
The solicitor for the mother said that the mother was present in court with her partner who was the father of the child in question. The mother’s solicitor told the court that the mother was consenting to a two-year care order. This consent was on the basis that the child was a young baby and that this would allow time for the mother to attend residential treatment, to engage with access and the residential centre.
He told the court that the mother dearly loved the child and that there had been several deaths in her family, including her father and brother who had died of suicide. He told the court that the mother was linking in with a key worker and was on a maintenance methadone programme. He acknowledged that she was still suffering from drug addiction and that the court hearing was a very difficult day for her. He noted that the child was in a placement outside the city and that how he came into care had been difficult.
The barrister for the father also accepted that a court order would be made but was asking the court for short order. She outlined to the court that her client had struggled with addiction since he was 12 or 13 years of age and that he had his name down to get into a hospital treatment bed in Dublin. She told the court that his name had been down since the previous summer and he hoped to get on to the detox residential programme. He also had a key worker and was on a prescription of medication and methadone. She told the court that he would like to pursue access, that he dearly loved the child and he was he was asking the court for a short order.
The court was told that the GAL was supporting the application to the age of 18. The court was told that the matter had been before the courts on a number of previous occasions and the proposals being outlined by the parents had previously been suggested on other occasions. She said they were very much aspirational and not a reality. The GAL was supporting a review at 18 months or two years, but she said the child had had no access with his parents since birth and that he had gone straight into care at birth from hospital.
The judge said that he had heard the CFA’s application that they were seeking a full care order to 18, he had heard submissions on behalf of both the mother and father and that they were consenting to a two-year order. He acknowledged that it was a difficult decision for the parents that they were not in a position to care for the child, and he said that the case should proceed therefore based on proportionality only.
The social worker was called to give evidence and he confirmed that he was the allocated social worker. He said he had received a referral from the medical social worker in the maternity hospital indicating an issue in relation to drug use. He said the worries regarding the mother were in relation to drug use including heroin, benzos and alcohol. He outlined that when the child had been born he had met the mother and her network in the hospital and a planning meeting was held on site to discuss the concerns.
On the day of the meeting the parents had left the child on the ward unattended for one hour and had asked the midwife to mind the child. He said the father had been shaky on his feet. He said the mother had told the social worker about her drug use and opiate use. Potential supports were explored and there was an initial agreement for a support network. However, a number of days later two of the people identified for the support network said they could not be part of it. The mother left the meeting to go and get her social welfare payment.
The social worker said his worries were about the parents’ commitment to the child and access. He said that after the child had entered foster care, he had set up video calls to support the parents and had arranged for transport tickets. He said he also had arranged supports regarding their addiction but the mother had not attended.
The solicitor for the mother asked the social worker about his interaction with the mother and he said he had difficulty contacting her but that she was pleasant and he acknowledged that she did ask about the child. He was aware that the parents were both on methadone and were in active addiction. The social worker said his immediate concerns were in relation to the parent’s drug use and access and it was a difficult to get a handle on what was going on.
The barrister for the father referred to the drug supports being provided to the parents, particularly in relation to the father. She made a point that the contact that the social worker had previously referred to was with the mother and not with the father.
A further social worker was called to give evidence who described her difficulty in contacting the father by phone. She said a letter had been sent to the mother at the address where the father had been living but it had been returned to sender. A planned meeting with the father had been re-scheduled by him and he turned up 10 minutes before the centre where it was to take place closed. There had been concern regarding his presentation and a smell of alcohol.
She said there had been a concern regarding his presentation and a smell of alcohol from the parents. She told the court that she had informed the parents about the court date and said that she would arrange a taxi. They did not return turn up for the taxi and no communication was received. She said eventually they said they had been sick. She said that taxis were arranged but they either did not get in or they did not turn up and then they made excuses the next day. She said that at the child’s first child in care review the parents would not get into the taxi and the review went ahead without them. She said at certain points she had numerous different numbers. At one stage she had five different numbers and had tried contacting the parents via WhatsApp but got no response.
She said she had tried liaising with the father’s mother, and she would try to ask his mother to ask him to make contact. She did acknowledge that sometimes she was able to contact them and provided updates.
She said in relation to registering the child’s birth she had offered support to the mother to register the birth and eventually the mother did make an appointment and registered the child’s birth, however she did not follow through in relation to getting the child’s PPS number or his vaccines. She said the pattern continued that there were incorrect phone numbers, new phone numbers and no access to the number anymore.
She said on previous occasions she had gone into the legal aid office with them and arranged meetings and some meetings were attended and some were not. She said the parents and were always honest in relation to the concerns but she said due to their lack of engagement it was difficult to offer any supports and difficult to progress supports that were offered and any access. She said she hoped that they did engage with residential treatment as there was currently no consistency.
She said the child had come into care since he was a number of days old and that he needed stability in order to continue. She said she said the parents had been given ample opportunities to engage and they needed residential treatment in order to sort out their addiction but they had no connection with the child currently.
The social worker said she had to ask the parents for photographs, but the child was a stranger to the parents and did not know them. She said alternatives to foster care had been explored. The grandmother had health and physical issues but had contact with the social worker who provided updates to her about the child and the grandmother provided Christmas and birthday presents and wrote lovely cards but unfortunately she was not deemed suitable for a foster care arrangement.
The social worker told the court that the child was in a long-term placement and had settled in very well. She said the foster father was at home full time and the foster mother had taken a career break to be at home. She said the child was meeting his milestones and was starting to speak.
She said he had been on trips with the family and was very fond of both his carers and the family dog. She said the foster carers were committed to the child and they did try to promote his birth family with the social worker. She said the previous carer had made a memory box for the child which went with him to his new placement.
She said the placement had not yet been long term matched but this would be discussed with the fostering link worker who had gone on sick leave. She said the foster care wanted the best for the child and that there was no doubt that the parents loved the child and wanted the best for him but due to their own circumstances and inconsistency they had no relationship or access with him. They had been given ample time over the years to engage with services and the child needed them to recover and to focus on their own stabilisation in a residential treatment.
She said they were still strangers to the child and that they might not be able to maintain addiction supports and therefore they would put the child at risk. When asked about the proportionality of the order that was being sought, a care order to 18 versus a two-year order, she said that lots of opportunities had been given to the parents to engage, they had long-standing addiction issues and they would need stability after treatment. She did agree to a court review after two years.
The solicitor for the father put it to the social worker that the mother had in fact had the child’s birth registered and that she had made that appointment and had attended. She said that that she had told the social worker that she loved the child and that she would send out photographs for her and print them.
The solicitor for the mother asked the social worker had his client been pleasant or hostile and she said she had been pleasant and she said they have had disagreements but they were able to resolve them. She accepted that addiction was a complex issue and it was difficult for people, they struggled to come to court due to addiction. The solicitor said that it was the mother’s plan to go into residential treatment. The social worker said she would be willing to engage with the mother’s key worker and that she had not been aware of any deaths in her family.
The social worker confirmed the child had moved to his new foster carers and a new environment and that had been relatively seamless. The social worker said that the subject of access was not closed and that they were open to a plan but they needed the parents to engage consistently with the social work department before any plan for access could be drawn up. She said there was credit for their parents attending the court on this occasion and she appreciated that they were here and engaging with their legal representatives.
The barrister for the father said that the father had been open and honest in relation to his addiction issues, he had had a lifelong struggle since he was 12 years of age there was no quick fix. This was accepted by the social worker. The barrister for the father also outlined to the court that the father was on the waiting list and was on methadone, had a key worker and was seeking access to the stabilisation program. The social worker accepted that it was positive that he was on the list, but he thought he had been on the list since last summer. It was accepted that the list waiting list was out of his control.
The barrister for the father said he was putting his son first and wanted to turn things around and needed to stabilise himself.
This barrister for the father said the child was still very young and had would have no concept of a care order for two years. The social worker said the father needed to show consistency and said he would agree to a review after two years.
A point was raised in relation to policy changes within the CFA regarding transfers of files to a local catchment area and it was confirmed that no file would transfer unless there was a social worker identified and allocated to the file before any such transfer took place.
The father chose to give evidence and he confirmed he was in addiction and could not care for the child. He did not agree to a care order to 18. He said he had struggled most of his life. He said he had linked in with his key worker and his name was down for a long time to get an in-house bed in the hospital to help with his addiction issues. He said he wanted his son in his life and he wanted a better life himself. He added that he wanted to work with the social worker and had shared the details of his key worker with the social work team.
The GAL was called to give evidence and said she was supporting the care order to 18 and confirmed that she had met the child in his placement. She said the carers were experienced and were doing well and the child was doing well. He was well dressed and had nice toys and was comfortable.
Regarding the parent’s proposal for a two-year order, she said that the child had had no access with the parents and there had been significant efforts on behalf of the social worker to connect with the parents but unfortunately there had been no significant change since the child’s birth. She confirmed that the child was meeting his milestones and was engaging with the public health nurse and GP and had an optical appointment.
She said the initial foster carers had been very attentive and responsive to the child’s needs but unfortunately, they had not been able to offer the child a long-term placement and that it was a selfless decision on their part for their child to transfer to another placement. She said a new placement had been found which was very suitable for the child. The GAL asked to remain appointed for a period of six weeks.
The judge said that this was an application for care order for the child who was 15 months old. The court had been provided with a booklet of reports including the birth certificate and recent care plan following the recent child and care review.
He said he had heard submissions heard evidence from the social workers, from the father and from the GAL and the CFA was seeking a care order to 18. He noted that the parents were consenting to a two-year order and the GAL was supporting an order to 18.
He said he acknowledged the parents were present in court and acknowledged that they had decided to consent to a two-year order as they could not care for the child. He said they were on the road to recovery and commended them for their decision that they had made. He noted that there had been a long history with the social work department and that the father had been very honest and open and he noted that he wanted to be a father to the child. He said that they would always be the child’s parents whatever the decision the court made, however they appreciated that they were on the road to recovery. He encouraged the parents to engage with their key workers and engage with social work department and wished them well with their engagement.
He referred to the emergency care order that had been made and to the initial interim care order which had been extended on several occasions, and the case had been set down for a care order hearing previously.
He said that according to section 18(1) (c) he was satisfied that the threshold was met as the parents had consented to a two-year order. He said that in considering proportionality he noted that the child had moved from one carer to another and was settling well, that the carers were committed to him and that he was meeting milestones. He said he had listened to the view of the GAL. It was not an easy decision for the court to make and that he was guided by section 24 of the Child Care Act 1991 regarding the child’s age. He said he was focusing on (1) stability (2) security and (3) consistency and any prejudice to the child in considering a long or short order.
He noted the child was settled, that the parents were only starting on a road to recovery and that the child had no current access with the parents. He said that a Care Order to 18 was both necessary and proportionate and would give their child security.
He noted that the parents both loved him and that they were making a decision for the child in his own interests.
The judge included a number of directions in relation to unallocated social workers and unallocated fostering link worker. He said of there should be a review in 18 months to see how the parents were getting on and how the child was settling in.
He discharged the GAL with effect from the date of the making of the care order and he set the aftercare review date and the review date and said that the GAL should be appointed in advance of both of those dates.