At a sitting of Dublin District Court the judge granted a full care order for a baby who had been born with drug withdrawal and had remained in care since birth. The application was uncontested and the mother did not attend or engage with the proceedings.
The social worker told the court the baby had been born slightly early, after a pregnancy marked by domestic violence incidents which had affected the mother’s health and wellbeing. The baby had been born with tremors and withdrawal symptoms because the mother had taken drugs during pregnancy. An interim care order had been sought in the spring. The social worker said the mother had not engaged with the CFA since then and had taken no steps to address her difficulties.
The baby was initially placed in a short-term foster placement and had recently moved to a long-term foster home. The carers were available to care for the child on a long-term basis. The baby also had an older sibling who was already in care.
The judge asked the social worker to confirm that the placement was stable. She said the current carers were committed to caring for the child for the long term and that the hope was that access could be arranged with the mother at some point in the future, if she engaged.
The guardian ad litem (GAL) confirmed her report. She said she had first met the baby in hospital. By that stage the mother had already left the hospital. The baby had been experiencing tremors and withdrawal and had been inconsolable, requiring a great deal of physical contact and comforting.
The GAL said she had met the mother once. The mother had acknowledged that she had many difficulties. She was rarely in her accommodation and had been excluded from one placement due to domestic violence against her partner, and later from another. The GAL said the mother had herself been a child in care and that an older son, aged around four or five, had been taken into care previously.
The GAL described the baby as “absolutely thriving” in the current foster placement. The foster parents had a daughter who was very attached to the baby, and the foster family ensured that all medical and developmental appointments were attended. The baby’s tremors had greatly reduced and she was meeting her developmental milestones. The carers were “doing great” and providing consistent, nurturing care.
The judge said the court had received a care plan and a detailed social work report. The application for a full care order was uncontested. He noted that the mother had not engaged with the CFA since the interim order had been made, had not attended court and had not had any access to the baby. He described it as sad that she was not in a position to engage with the proceedings and even sadder that she had not engaged with or seen her child.
The judge said it was somewhat unusual to make a full care order in respect of such a young baby, but the circumstances justified it. He noted that the mother had left the hospital while the baby was still in intensive care and that the baby had been born with tremors and withdrawals before being moved through short-term and then long-term foster placements.
On the basis of the evidence, he was satisfied that the threshold for a care order under section 18(1)(b) and (c) was met. He referred to the chaotic circumstances of the mother’s life and the complete lack of engagement. He granted a full care order until the child’s eighteenth birthday.
The judge adopted the GAL’s recommendations, including those directed to the CFA. He directed that there be a review of the care order and long-term matching in about twelve weeks’ time, and that there be a further review approximately one year later. He directed that the GAL remain involved for a limited period to monitor the initial implementation of the order.