A full care order until the age of 18 was granted by a District Court in a regional town where the child had suffered severe and traumatic injuries at three months old a few years earlier while in the care of his parents. The child had been under interim care orders since he was taken into care from hospital where he had been brought with serious injuries.
Both parents consented to the order. The mother was in court and the father’s solicitor informed the judge that the father would not be attending. The parents had separate legal representation. The judge said that she would hear evidence from the consultant paediatrician and the social worker to ensure that the threshold for a full care order was reached.
Consultant Paediatrician evidence
The paediatrician confirmed that he was the paediatrician on call in the hospital A&E when the three-month old baby was brought in by his parents. The paediatrician said that the baby was clearly very unwell and he presented as pale, lethargic and very floppy, with bruises on the left side of his head, ear and neck. He confirmed that it was a life-or-death scenario. He said the baby was given an urgent blood transfusion and then underwent a full body skeletal Xray from head to toe. He underwent special brain tests which showed a bleed on his brain.
The paediatrician said that he and the A&E team were immediately concerned about non- accidental injury. He said that robust protocol was put in place as this was a three-month-old baby who was immobile and had presented with multiple bruises and blood on an outer layer of the brain. He said that the CFA, the Gardaí and the medical social worker were all contacted immediately under this protocol.
He said that under the non-accidental injury protocol, the results of the skeletal survey were communicated back to him immediately the following morning. There were several fractures including a fractured skull bone on the left side, fractures on both arms at the wrist, fractured bones of the left and right legs, swelling on the knees and broken left and right ribs.
The paediatrician said it was clear that the injury to the child’s skull was from a trauma to the head which would have been a forceful impact. He confirmed that the baby was underweight and malnourished and that some of the fractures were fresh, but others were old fractures which were healing.
CFA barrister: “What was the parents’ interaction with the medical staff in the hospital?” Paediatrician: “The father told me that the baby was in his lap and he was rocking him when he became floppy and they decided to call the ambulance.” The paediatrician then said that the parents offered no further explanation as to how the child’s injuries had occurred and they repeatedly told the medical staff that they did not know what happened. He said they did not react when they were told how sick he was, and they did not ask a single question about his condition or treatment.
The paediatrician said that both parents had brought the baby to the hospital but the father was not seen again in the hospital after that. The mother came to the ward a couple of times but not consistently. The paediatrician also said that once the non-accidental injury protocol was put in place, the parents were never left alone with the baby while he was in the hospital.
The paediatrician confirmed that he had reviewed the child several times since he first came to the hospital, and he was now meeting his developmental milestones.
Judge: “Is the child showing any effects of the trauma he has experienced?”
Paediatrician: “Not that I can tell as he was only three months old at the time of the injuries and there have been no further breaks or bruises since.”
Social worker evidence
The social worker confirmed that the parents had not come to the attention of social services before the baby had been admitted to hospital. She stated that an interim care order had been obtained almost immediately once information had been gathered from the Gardaí and the medical team.
The social worker said that both parents had been very consistent in saying that they did not know how the baby had suffered his injuries.
The social worker confirmed that the child had been in the same foster care placement since he was three months old. She said that he was getting on very well, he was a happy playful child, and the foster carers were happy to have the child in a long-term placement. The social worker said that the child was meeting all his developmental milestones and no longer required physiotherapy.
She said that he had recently started to have night terrors every night, and he had been referred for an appointment with HSE psychology and other therapeutic teams in the CFA to see what treatment could be offered to him for this. The social worker said that the psychological effects of what had happened to the child when he was a baby might not manifest themselves for many years to come.
The social worker said that she has never heard from the father, and she occasionally got a text message from the mother looking for updates in relation to the child. She confirmed that both parents attended the most recent child in care review over the phone. The social worker said that the parents continued to say that they did not know how the child suffered his injuries and so it was difficult to make any progress with them in terms of access. She confirmed that the parents had no access with the child at present and that there were criminal proceedings pending before the Courts in relation to the child’s injuries.
The social worker said that the child had access with his maternal and paternal grandparents which was supervised by the CFA and this access was a positive experience for the child. The social worker said that an independent social work report had been obtained by the CFA in relation to parental access and the independent assessor felt that access with the parents would not be in the child’s best interests.
The mother had also attended an independent psychologist and the purpose of this was to try and get a better understanding of her psychological state at that time. The report of the independent psychologist said that the mother was very closed in the assessment, and he was of the view that she could not protect and care for the child.
The social worker confirmed that a full care order until the child is 18 was being sought. She said that this application was based on the child’s significant injuries that could have resulted in his death, together with serious neglect, and that the most likely perpetrator of these injuries was one or both parents. She said that the child was doing very well now but if he was returned to his parents his health, welfare and development would be severely compromised. She confirmed that there was no application for access by the parents before the Court.
Barrister for the GAL: “One issue of importance into the future is the need for a script for the child as to what happened to him, can you confirm whether this will be put in place by the CFA as the child gets older?”
Social worker: “This will be the case as it is very important, and the maternal and paternal grandparents will be involved in the preparation of any script.”
The barrister for the GAL said that all decisions relating to the child should be taken very carefully and the social worker agreed with this. The social worker had no difficulty with the GAL’s request to remain on as the child’s GAL for the next three months, and to the GAL’s recommendation of a review by the Court in or around June 2028. The social worker also agreed with the GAL’s recommendation that any planned or unplanned change in the child’s placement would require the matter to come back to court.
Evidence of the emergency care social worker
The emergency care social worker said that he had been involved with the child from when the call first came from the hospital and he had prepared reports for the first four court appearances in relation to the child. He said that because the child was already in the hospital there was no need for an emergency care order, so an interim care order was applied for which was based on the hospital reports that the child had over 20 injuries which were not consistent with an accident.
The emergency care social worker said the parents provided no credible explanation as to the injuries and there was no one parent blaming the other. He said there was a concern that the child had been neglected as the parents had only attended with the public health nurse on one occasion.
The emergency care social worker said that parental access was considered but the worry was about what kind of memories the child would hold and carry with him, so an independent social worker report was carried out. He said on the advice of the independent social worker, a supervised access visit with the parents was arranged and while the child was happy to go to his mother, he physically recoiled when his saw his father.
The emergency care social worker said that the possibility of placing the child with his maternal grandparents had been explored but it was decided not to take the risk of unsupervised access with the mother.
Evidence of the GAL
The GAL said that the child was doing very well, he was a very happy boy who adored his foster parents and they adore him.
She said he was typical for a boy of his age in that he loved cars and playing, and his speech was ahead of where it should be. She said that there was also an older foster child in the home who was like a big brother to him.
The GAL said that the child had displayed some behavioural issues on occasion, above and beyond what would be expected of a normal pre-school age child. She also said that there were some concerns about his normal presentation already and that the severe trauma he suffered may come back and play out in the years to come.
The GAL met with both parents in 2023 and they did not provide any explanation as to what had happened to the child. She said that there had been no engagement from the father since then and occasionally the GAL received a text from the mother asking how the child was. The GAL said that she usually called the mother to give her an update.
The GAL said that the parents had not queried the refusal to give them access and on one occasion the mother was upset about not seeing him but there had been no mention of access since then.
The GAL confirmed that in her professional opinion it was in the child’s best interests and it was proportionate that the long-term care order until the age of eighteen be made. She said his health, development and welfare would be in danger if it was not made. She said that the child deserved a long-term plan and his foster parents would also benefit if they had a long-term plan.
The GAL said that one of the biggest concerns was the narrative and how the child would tell his story. She said that the child deserved a clear story and it was not in his best interests to be told different things by different people. She said that it would be important to work to the child’s timeline now that he was getting older.
Judge’s ruling
The judge said this was a case that had very frightening circumstances, and where such terrible physical injuries had happened to a child there was the potential for very serious psychological issues for him into the future.
The judge said that she had listened to the medical and social work evidence. She said she was satisfied that the threshold of section 18(1)( c) had been met and that the long-term care order was appropriate. She said the GAL was to continue her appointment for three months and thereafter be reappointed on the 21st of March 2028 for a review on the 14th of June 2028.
She gave liberty to re-enter and access with the parents is to be at the discretion of the CFA.
The judge said it should be noted that the court had to congratulate and admire the medical professionals and particularly the foster parents for the work they had done with the child to date.