Introduction
1. This case concerns an application for a Care Order under Section 18 of the Child Care Act, 1991 (herein after referred to as ‘the 1991 Act’) in respect of a 4 and a half year old child.

2. The Applicant in this case is the Child and Family Agency (“the Agency”) and the Agency requested the making of a Care Order under the 1991 Act in respect of the child until such time as the child attains the age of eighteen years.

3. The first named Respondent is referred to as “the mother” and the second named Respondent is referred to as “the father” and the child is referred to as “the child”. In this way the public interest in favour of publication can be satisfied without any identification of the mother, father or the child in accordance with the requirements of the Child Care Act, 1991 and The Court and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013. For these reasons the identity of the witnesses must also be redacted to avoid the risk of identification of the child, the mother or the father by jigsaw identification. The report of this decision has been "anonymised” to ensure that the rights of both the child and his parents as litigants, in an in camera hearing under The Child Care Act 1991 are protected.

4. The respondent mother chose to represent herself in the proceedings, as is her right. She was clear that she had been through care proceedings in the past in respect of her other children and would prefer to represent herself. The court was mindful of her status as a lay litigant throughout the conduct of the proceedings. The father was represented by solicitor and counsel.

5. The mother and father were present in court for the two days of the hearing. The date of delivery of the Court’s judgement was delayed because of a death in the father’s family. The child’s parents acknowledged that they could not currently care for their son, but oppose the making of the Care Order until he is eighteen years old on the basis that the duration of the Care Order sought by the Agency was neither necessary nor proportionate to protect his safety or his health development and welfare.

6. The child’s separate interests in the proceedings were highlighted by the Guardian ad Litem who was represented by his solicitor.

7. I am satisfied that the Dublin Metropolitan District has jurisdiction to hear this application.

Background
8. The Agency provided a Summary of Facts outlining both the facts and the findings that the Court would be asked to make having regard to the evidence to be adduced. In the context of the Respondent father, his counsel helpfully indicated that her client largely accepted the facts set out in the Summary with regard to him with the exception of the characterisation of his engagement with social workers set out in the second bullet paragraph of page 5 of the Summary document. The disputed paragraph was contested in full. The disputed paragraph was read out in Court to ensure that the mother was fully aware of the content of same and she was also furnished with all of the Reports referenced in the course of the proceedings to ensure that she was not prejudiced by lack of legal representation at any point in the proceedings.

9. The child came into the care of the Agency shortly after his birth. The child has [redacted] maternal siblings all of whom were received into the care of the Agency. The child also has [redacted] paternal siblings who are cared for by their mother and the father has no access to them. The precise number of maternal and paternal siblings has been redacted in any report of this decision pursuant to paragraph 3 above.

10. Unfortunately each of the child’s parents has a history of substance misuse, homelessness and drug related criminal offending. A pre-birth conference was convened by the Agency before the child was born. The purpose of this conference was to undertake a risk analysis and assess whether the child could be supported in the care of his mother or whether his welfare required early intervention or preventative interventions to protect the child’s safety and welfare. The conference determined that it was in the unborn child’s best interest to be received into care following birth. The mother acknowledged this to be the case and gave her consent to this course of action. She signed a Voluntary Reception in to Care Form in accordance with Section 4 of the 1991 Act as the child’s sole legal guardian. The father was incarcerated at the time.

11. The child remained in the maternity hospital with the mother for approximately sixteen days after birth. The Agency acknowledged the decision to place the child in care was very difficult for the mother and she did so to ensure the child’s safety and welfare. The Agency arranged for access four days per week following the child’s hospital discharge. Unfortunately within a period of months the mother’s attendance at access waned and became less consistent. The Agency decided, in the best interests of the child, to suspend access until a more realistic schedule could be agreed with the mother. An agreed schedule was not achieved and so a routine pattern of access was not established. The father met the child for the first time approximately six months after his birth when he was released from prison. The father has only had a handful of access visits with the child because of difficulties he experienced in engaging with the Agency to discuss the creation of a schedule or plan of access visits.

12. The child’s birth was not registered by the parents until six months after his birth. Hence the child’s name as registered is now different from the name the child is generally known by and is familiar with. The child has resided in the same foster care placement since infancy. This home is the child’s centre of gravity and stability, and subject to the court’s decision the foster placement has been matched as a suitable long term placement for the child.

13. The child is healthy. The child was monitored for signs of neo natal abstinence syndrome at birth but did not require any medication at birth. The child attended the hospital clinic as a result of exposure to maternal Hepatitis C. This required the regular medical monitoring of the child but the child was discharged from the clinic at eighteen months. The child has some ophthalmology needs and wears glasses but is otherwise a happy and healthy child.

Matters in Dispute
14. The contested issue in this case was the duration of the Care Order and the disputed facts were set out in page five of the Fact Summary Document and furnished by the Agency to all parties in advance of the proceedings. Each parent accepted that the Agency met the threshold of s. 18(1) (c) and that their child was required to come into the Care of the Agency. Each acknowledged that neither of them was able to care for the child right now. Each parent also accepted that the child is appropriately placed by the Agency in a good fostering arrangement and that all of the child’s needs are being met to a high standard within the placement. Each parent made clear their view that the Court should only make the Care Order for three years, to allow each of them the opportunity to become substance free and develop a relationship with their child through access. On the other hand, the position of the Agency and the Guardian was that a Care Order for this limited duration was insufficient to ensure the safety and welfare of the child in the circumstances of the case.

Legal Position
15. The relevant law to be applied is well established. Article 42A of the Constitution is quite clear that any interference with a parent’s Constitutional rights must be an exceptional measure which is justified by reason of the safety and welfare of any of their children and then only in accordance with law. The onus is entirely on the Agency to establish that the Care Order for the duration requested is necessary to protect the safety and welfare of the child and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. Section 18 (1) of 1991 Act as amended sets out the statutory threshold. Both the Agency and the Court must also have regard to the rights and duties of parents whether under the Constitution or otherwise as set out in Section 3(2) (b) and Section 24 of the Child Care Act, 1991. The Court must only make care orders that are proportionate in all the circumstances. The Court should not intervene in family life unless it is truly necessary, and then to the least possible extent necessary to protect the child. Section 24 of the 1991 Act sets out how the Court must proceed when required to balance the rights of a child with the rights other family members when such rights conflict. This mechanism is set out for the Agency by Section 3(2)(b) of the 1991 Act.

16. Section 18 of the Child Care Act, 1991 refers to the rights and duties of parents whether under the Constitution or otherwise. The European Convention on Human Rights has been incorporated into Irish law in a sub Constitutional manner. Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act, 2003, oblige all courts to interpret legislation in a convention compliant manner in so far as practicable and have due regard to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights where relevant. The relevant jurisprudence regarding Article 8 of the Convention (respect for private and family life) also provides that the State should go no further than is necessary in order to protect the child by proportionate means as provided by law.

17. Accordingly, both the Constitution, the Child Care Act, 1991 and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights are clear that where a child's rights conflict with a parents’ right the child's interests will take priority. The child too has a right to family life and a right to know and be brought up by his natural parents wherever possible and, as acknowledged by Section 3(2) (c) of the 1991 Act, it is necessary to have regard to the principle that it is generally in the best interests of a child to be brought up in his own family.

Evidence
18. The Court received and read the Trial Booklet of Reports filed by the Agency. The Court also received additional Reports from the Guardian Ad Litem for the child, an additional Agency Social Work Report; a Report from the father’s Probation Officer, a Psychology Report from JN who was engaged by the Agency to advise on access arrangements, and a Report from the Drug Treatment Centre attended by the mother signed by the Senior Social Worker and the Locum Consultant Psychiatrist. The Report from The Housing Trust furnished on behalf of the father from his key worker was admitted into evidence without formal proof and read into the record, which recorded that the respondent father is respectful in his interactions with others and has insight and a willingness to advance. The Court heard the evidence over 2 days. The witnesses who gave and provided Reports include:

a. AH, the Probation Officer [No.1] to the father;

b. CB, the Probation Officer [No. 2] to the mother;

c. JN, the Psychologist and Report to Court provided on [dated redacted] regarding child’s needs;

d. S O’T, the Social Work Team Leader, allocated to case before and after birth of child in the period [date redacted]

e. ID, the Allocated Social Worker [ date redacted];

f. MM the Senior Psychiatric Social Worker National Drug Treatment Centre;

g. TK, the currently allocated Social Worker

h. CC, child A’s father;

i. LH , child A’s mother

j. EB. Guardian Ad Litem for the child;

k. The Reports at Tab 5&6 of Dr. M.B were admitted without formal proof;

20. However to make sense of the findings of fact I must make, I have provided a brief summary of the evidence and factual position.

21. The evidence provided from the Probation Service in respect of each parent is that they are compliant clients of the Probation Service. They are easy to work with and their criminal offending is related to their respective addiction issues. The period of probation for each parent will extend to next year and unfortunately fresh charges are pending against the father. It was the father himself who brought this the attention that service. The Probation Officer for the father gave evidence regarding the animated and forceful way the father discusses or debates issues, especially issues that he has strong views about. This style of engagement is, in the view of his Probation Officer, part of the father’s personality and style, however he has endeavored to help him to realize how his demeanour might be seen aggressive by others. The probation officer for the mother confirmed, on cross examination by the mother, that her children come up a lot in their discussions and the mother’s intention is to put her children first. There is no question but that the mother wants the best for her children.

22. JN Psychologist gave evidence that she was not able to encourage either parent to meet her to assess the best way to reinstate access arrangements for each parent with the child, which would serve the child’s best interests. It was her role to undertake a psychological assessment with this in mind. She met the child and the foster carers. She found the child to be shy but pleasant and engaging. She only had the opportunity to meet with the parents at court, as they were reluctant to engage with her before this. Her professional opinion was that each parent separately acknowledged that they needed to address their substance addictions and this will take time. In her opinion the issue was not just becoming substance free. The father acknowledged to her that he would need to make changes in his life, do courses, to engage in psychotherapy and to secure accommodation. Once this was achieved he intended to go back to third level education. The mother told her that she was happy and relieved that the child was with good people. She was happy with this situation and felt that she could ‘sleep easy’ knowing this. It was her hope, having gained stability, to go into residential treatment.

23. JN’s professional opinion was that the child required the ‘permanency and stability’ of a long term Care Order to age 18 years. It was her professional view that a Child In Care statutory review process would be undertaken by the Agency each year, and this would sufficiently address the question of assessing the potential for reunification with either parent annually. It would be possible to consider whether reunification of the child with the parents jointly or individually would be appropriate and in the best interests of the child. It was her view that the balance should be struck by making the Order until the child attained eighteen years rather than for a period of three years. It was her professional opinion that the statutory process of an annual assessment would be proportionate in circumstances whereby the parents needed to establish that they had managed to make all the necessary changes in their life to present an alternative care option for the child. It was also her professional opinion that the child was securely attached to the foster carers but was also ‘hyper vigilant’. Any level of insecurity introduced to his care arrangements would not, in her view, be in the child’s best interests.

24. On cross-examination she explained in great detail her rationale for her professional view regarding the duration of the care order. It was her professional view that the child needs to know and to be assured that the future is predicable. In her professional opinion this is important for the child’s psychological stability. The child, like other children in care will need to do ‘life story work’ at an appropriate age and developmental stage to help make sense of their family history. The child will need to start school and be assured that day-to-day life is both predictable and secure. In this case the child’s parents need to undertake a lot of work to address their issues and be stable in their recovery before even access and contact with the child can recommence. She clarified that she would recommend a court review in 2 years for the benefit of both the parents and the child.

25. S O’T the Allocated Social Worker in the period immediately before and after birth of the child, and later became the social work Team Leader, gave evidence in court. It was her testimony that the mother’s older children were in care and her drug use spiralled in the early stages of her pregnancy with the child. She was originally very hopeful of reunification of the mother and child as this was what the mother wanted. The mother was personable and was very open about her substance abuse and related issues. The mother was initially consistent in attending access with the child for a period of 2 to 3 months. Unfortunately her attendance at access then waned. The father met the child for the first time when the child was six months old when he was released from prison. The father presented well at that time. The situation then deteriorated. It was not possible to encourage the parents to co-operate in creating an agreed schedule of access with the child due to each parent’s addiction and homelessness. Neither parent was regular or consistent in coming to discuss access planning or attend arranged access with the child. SO’T also stated that the respondent mother gave different accounts of her relationship with the father, and disclosed an episode of domestic violence to her once. She was aware that the mother was in a Women’s’ Refuge for a period. On one occasion she formed the view that the father was under the influence of a substance when he came to the social work department to discuss access. She did not think the father was as open and honest about his addiction as the mother was.

26. ID was the allocated social worker for an eight-month period. He said that the parents were not consistent in attending social work appointments, were not consistent in attending access with the child. They did not present at the pre-arranged time of access appointments. He formed the opinion that the respondent father was under the influence of a substance on at least one occasion when he attended for access. ID stated that the respondent father was aggressive in his engagements with him. He was never physically concerned for his own safety in these encounters however he was concerned about the father’s demeanour and level of animation around a child. He was conscious that the Agency has an obligation to work with parents to develop plans for reunification. However, it was his opinion that parents must also work with the Agency. ID gave the parents pictures of the child to help then to keep the child in their focus and to keep them engaged in a process whereby access could be set up and become consistent. However he formed the view that their own homelessness and substance misuse issues distracted them from this goal. He agreed on cross-examination that he did not specifically recommend to the respondent father that he should engage in anger management therapy. However ID stated that he did try to explain the impact of his presentation on others and offered appointments to work with the father directly on this issue. However the respondent father did not engage with him or try to build a working relationship. He acknowledged that the respondent father had told him he had been abused in care. He also acknowledged that for the respondent father, building a trusting relationship with a social worker in the childcare department was challenging.

27. MM gave evidence in accordance with reports in Tab 7 and 8 of the booklet; she was of the view that the mother will require Residential Rehabilitation. However before this service is available the mother must achieve stability. She must establish the ability to exclusively rely on methadone maintenance rather than street drugs. This must be clear from urine samples given consistently. Only then can the mother undergo detoxification, and this process would have to be medically supervised. She confirmed that there is a Care Plan for the respondent mother. The road map to recovery is clear but difficult. The Service would continue to assist and treat the respondent mother.

28. The Social Worker TK provided a pen picture of the child for the Court describing Child A is a gorgeous child who loves to play and was delighted to start Montessori play school. The child is also watchful. The child has been in the care of the Agency from the age of seven weeks old. The child’s foster carers are the only parental figures that the child is familiar with and knows. They attend to all of the child’s needs and is a part of their family. They are attuned and attentive to the physical, emotional and psychological wellbeing of the child and this has been demonstrated by their commitment to bringing the child to many health and medical appointments, and doing remedial work with the child to address developmental speech delay. For these reasons TK believed that the child’s health and welfare now required to be assured though a Care Order until the child reaches 18 years. It was the Social Worker’s professional opinion that such Order would assure the child’s stability in this placement. If the parents or either of them manages to overcome the issues they have in their lives, then the situation can be assessed again. TK stated that she would have liked to set up a child focused access schedule for the parents to ensure consistency in the best interests of the child. She tried to involve the parents’ key workers with this goal, but her efforts were to no avail. TK was allocated to the case in [date redacted]. She tried to develop a relationship with the parents to reinstate access but her evidence was that the father’s engagement was sporadic and at times deeply concerning and in her view aggressive and threatening at times. The mother disclosed to her that she had a turbulent relationship with the father, although the father denied that this was the case. The mother’s life was very complicated and chaotic but she was never aggressive or threatening in her interactions with TK. The mother was always open and honest in her engagement with her and she was genuine desire in her desire to address her substance addiction issues. TK was cross examined on her evidence and indicated that she was satisfied that each parent knew what had to happen before the Agency could re-instate access. Ultimately it became necessary to bring an application for an Interim Care Order to ensure that the best interests of the child were prioritized. She felt that neither parent has demonstrated the ability or motivation to change or to follow through on good intentions. Neither parent has engaged in the child’s care planning by attending statutory Child in Care review meetings, they have not co-operated in putting access back on track and have not seen the child for over three years now. TK stated that she endeavored to set up an exchange of photographs and requested the parents share details of their lives so that this process would pave the way for direct access. But there was minimal co-operation from the parents in this. It was put to TK that the father’s Probation Officer had no issues working with him. T.K was clear that her experience of her engagements with the father were very different. TK formed the view that his engagement would be unlikely to change unless the father had the assistance of an advocate at meetings. It was also put to TK that a proportionate order might be for the duration of two or three years. It was put to her that it was not necessary for a four year old child to have an order made until he attained the age of 18 years. TK indicated that the child’s certainty and security in this placement required a long term order. It was her professional opinion that the child’s health needs and school placement was best assured by such an order on the facts of the case. She also noted that the legislation provided mechanisms to vary or discharge an order if circumstances change. Additionally the agency assesses the potential for reunification each year as was their statutory obligation. The mother made it clear that duration of the order was a concern for her as her other children are in care and some have had a very poor experience of care placement moves.

29. The Respondent father gave evidence, as did the Respondent mother and each were impressive in their demeanour and candour.

30. The Respondent mother was very forthright about her problems with substance misuse with associated criminal offending, depression and homelessness after the breakdown of her first relationship, and the exacerbation of those difficulties in subsequent relationships with the fathers of her other children in care. The mother stated that she felt ‘shielded’ by the father as she is vulnerable. She acknowledged as a couple they have issues and that life is not ‘perfect’ and they each need to get their own life together. She is reassured that her child is in a good care placement and this fact helps her to sleep easy; she does not want this placement put at risk. She accepts and acknowledges that she cannot care for Child A at this time. However she expressed that she was torn about consenting to a Care Order for this child until 18 years of age. This is because she has concerns about how her other children are coping in care. However it was her evidence that she was prepared to consent to an order for a period of 3 years but that, for her an Order to 18 years was too long.

31. The father stated that as a child he was in the care of the Agency from time to time. He first came into foster care at age 18 months, again when he was 8 or 9 years old, again at 11 years and he was also in residential care. He then left care and became homeless and was sleeping on the street. His experience in care was traumatic. He does not feel that he was given tools to cope with life by the care system. He has huge concerns that this will be his child’s experience also. His hope is that his child will stay in the current care placement for the next 3 years and is confident that he will be in a far better place at that time to be a father. He intends to address all the issues preventing him from doing that at present, and these include substance misuse and associated criminal offending, and homelessness. He has made a start. DJ his key worker is helping him to get back into third level education, to get involved with Soilse so he can become drug free. He has a good relationship with his Probation Officer and DJ, but he has a very poor relationship with Agency Social Workers. He wants respect, understanding and trust and agrees that these take time to build and are a two way street. He also agrees that he cannot care for the child at the moment and he wants to consent to a Care Order for 3 years with a full review in 18months time. He expects to be drug free, in education and have stable accommodation at that time. He accepts that he needs to establish stability before he can begin. He has charges pending but was open about that with his Probation Officer. He feels that he has now turned a corner in terms of acknowledgement of issues he needs to address. He wishes to take assistance from an EPIC advocate so that he can better manage his engagement with social workers and build up trust in that regard.

32. The Guardian Ad Litem gave evidence that the child is now a robust but sensitive little child. The child had a poor sleeping pattern for the first two years. The child gets on well with his foster brother and his behaviour indicates that he has a secure emotional base from a ‘stay at home’ foster carer who is totally attuned to the child’s needs. The child is now a part of that family. As a Guardian for the child he advocated for an independent person, JN to be engaged to reinstate some access between the parents and the child and get that back on track in the best interests of the child. He acknowledged that he saw good potential in each parent, if they can succeed in gaining traction on their respective addictions. The mother is very vulnerable and open. The father is both intelligent and articulate but his engagement with social workers is troubling. In his view each parent can turn their lives around if they try and if they can persevere in their recovery. However the child is now a stranger to them and they have little insight into this reality. As the child’s Guardian Ad Litem he had to address the reality and best interest of the child. Neither parent is able at this time to care for the child. He has committed foster carers who can be there for the long term. They understand this child’s needs and this includes the need for predictability in his care arrangements. Any uncertainty must be avoided for the child, and there is huge uncertainty in the parents’ lives. If they were on the road to recovery and engaging is access regularly and predictably the Guardian was of the view that his recommendations might be different. In his professional opinion the child’s best interests were assured by an Order to age 18 years but with a review in 18 months. He recommended access should take place in accordance with Section 37 of the Act but arrangements should meet the best interests and welfare needs of the child.

Finding of Facts
33. It is conceded that the child’s health, development or welfare is likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected, and that the child requires care or protection which the child is unlikely to receive unless the court makes an order under s. 18 of the Act of 1991. It is conceded that each parent has very substantial issues to overcome. They accept that the Court must make a Care Order in respect of the child at this time and that neither of them can provide care for the child.

34. The core issue is the parent’s longstanding substance misuses, associated criminal charges and homelessness. Both parents in their own way are very vulnerable. I note the father’s evidence that he has found it to be very difficult to engage with child protection social workers by reason of his own experiences in the care system. I also note that he has a very different relationship with the Probation Service and his key worker in the housing charity. The mother on the other hand has a good relationship with both the Agency social workers and the Probation Service. In the abstract, there might appear to be conflicting evidence of the father’s ability to engage with professionals. However, on his own admission he finds it quite difficult to work constructively with child protection social workers. I am satisfied on his evidence that his own care experiences appear to have created an environment of suspicion in his relationship with successive social workers managing the child’s case. The evidence supports the contention that the father was belligerent in his engagement with social workers at times. The father shows considerable insight into the reasons for this, given his own experience in care, but despite this self awareness he has not, thus far, found it possible to forge a co-operative relationship with social workers to put his access to the child back on track. If he is to move beyond this impasse, he will have to focus on his overarching goal of restoring access and engage co-operatively with the child protection social workers. The Agency for their part must respect understand and tolerate the father’s hesitancy to trust child protection social workers and assist him in this regard in the best interests of the child.

35. Right now, neither parent has a parenting relationship with the child in the sense of being engaged in child care planning meetings or access with the child although the reasons for this are disputed. I accept that the parents are concerned about and love their child.

36. I find as a fact that the status of the parent’s interpersonal relationship is unclear, but I accept the evidence of SOT and TK that there were episodes of significant domestic discord in the past between the parents. The mother’s own evidence is that things are “not perfect”. I accept the evidence of social workers SOT, ID and TK that every effort was made to support the respondent mother and assist her both before and after he child was received into care. I accept the assessment of SOT that reunification appeared a viable potential for a short period when her attendance at access was consistent. I also accept that the social workers endeavoured to engage with the Respondent father when he was released from prison but his antipathy and hostile attitude towards social workers prevented him from taking advantage of that help, even when he has the benefit of an advocate to assist him in that regard. I accept on the evidence as do the parents that a Care Order is required to address the identified level of risk and that a Supervision Order would not address the risk sufficiently.

37. Notwithstanding past interpersonal difficulties I accept that they now appear to have a mutually supportive relationship and presented as a couple to the Court. Their evidence is that they want to change their lives around and address their respective addictions. The evidence of MM Senior Social Worker with NDTC indicates that things were very hopeful at present in the case of the mother. Equally in the case of the father the evidence adduced and his own evidence was clear that his efforts to become drug free slipped the year before. I am satisfied that each parent understands fully the long road to recovery ahead of them if they chose to take it. I am also satisfied that each understands that the time a person can stay in each stage of recovery is variable, but that the tasks required to move on to the next stage are not variable. The Reports of Dr. MB, admitted in evidence without the necessity for formal proof indicated that the father receives methadone maintenance treatment but has not provided samples for urine analyses since August 2016. Two samples analysed prior to the end of August 2016 were positive for narcotic substances other than methadone. There is no evidence before the Court that either parent has actually taken the first step but I fully accept their intention to do so.

38. The evidence of the father is that he wishes to reengage in third level education and I have little doubt that he has the intelligence and capacity to do so if he can remain drug free. I am also satisfied on the evidence that LH is open an honest in her engagement with the social work department and had an excellent understanding of what is needed to change her life around. However the realities cannot be ignored when making a Care Order. The fact remains that neither parent has at this time entered into a drug rehabilitation program of known or set duration and each accepts that they cannot care for the child at this time. The parents have not persevered inn their efforts to re-establish bonds with their child through consistent attendance at access. Neither parent has any concerns about the suitability or stability of the child’s current placement and are happy that he is well looked after in this placement.

Substantive Question
39. The net issue is to be determined by the Court is the duration of the Order. The parents wish to become substance free, to obtain housing and address the many issues which have led them to the position where they cannot offer care to their child at this time.

40. The evidence of the social workers, the psychologist and the Guardian ad Litem are that the child needs the security of a long term order to age eighteen years rather than a Care Order until he is seven years old. The parents’ evidence is that they want to become clean and sober and be the best possible parents they can be for the child within a three year time frame and ask the Court not to make a long term Order but to make an Order for three years and see how they are doing at that stage with Court Reviews in the intervening period.

41. I am satisfied that if the parents can gain traction on their addiction, and develop a relationship with the child at the child’s pace they will have a lot to offer Child A, and there is merit in maintaining that value for the child. In order to respect the wording as well as the spirit of Article 42A and the Child Care Act 1991, however it is crucial that a child-centred focus not be lost in the proceedings before the Court and consequently the duration of the Order must be evaluated in contemplation of what is best for the child, rather than for the parents.

42. A Care Order will not terminate the parents’ rights, and they remain as the child’s parents with responsibilities and rights under the Constitution or otherwise.

43. The child has been in the care of the foster carers for most of his life. His entire world consists of this reality. Neither parent has been able to engage in co-operative care planning for him. The professional evidence, formed after thoughtful consideration of the needs and interests of this child, is that he needs a long-term order to ensure his stability. The bonds and attachments that the child has made with his foster carers cannot reasonably be ignored or put in jeopardy. The parents have not seen Child A for approximately three years, which is a long time in the life of a child of four and a half years. On the evidence I have heard it is quite clear that a lot of work needs to be done to restore child centred access.

44. The child appears to have no cognitive delay but he has some developmental delay and will require consistent remediation through speech and language therapy.

45. A proportionality analysis cannot be undertaken without reference to the facts of each individual case. The father has not been able to work with any of the child protection social workers to put an access schedule in place. Neither parent has seen the child for some three years. The child has formed attachments with his foster carers and the emotional impact, should he be removed from this placement, would be considerable. The evidence of the social workers, JN Psychologist and the Guardian Ad Litem all point towards the need for an Order which allows the child to settle into a suitable, consistent and predictable care arrangement so that he can grow in independence and security to adulthood. At the moment the parents, to their credit, accept that significant aspects of their lives are not in keeping with the child’s best interests. Their substance addiction has created a high wall which has prevented them from parenting. They want to demolish that wall and become drug free and stable, but have not been able to do that so far. Notwithstanding the valiant efforts of the mother and counsel for the father to persuade me that a short term Care Order until the child reaches the age of seven years would give them the chance to become drug free, I do not believe that such an order would be purposeful or in the best interests of the child. Each of these parents has a lot to offer the child if they can gain traction on their addiction. The door should not be closed to them playing a role in the child’s life if they can sustain a drug free and stable lifestyle. At this time however I am satisfied that it is necessary for a Care Order to be granted under Section 18 (1) (c) of the Act of 1991 as amended until Child A is 18 years. However the following safeguards will be put in place now to ensure the rights of the parents also.

46. Pursuant to s. 37 of the Act the Agency is obliged to facilitate reasonable access to the child by his parents. In facilitating this access the Agency must regard the welfare of the child as the first and paramount consideration, and must also in so far as is practicable give due consideration to the wishes of the child having due regard his age and understanding. It is clear that there must be calm and purposeful engagement by the parents with the Agency to ensure that access is child centred and appropriate.

47. Pursuant to s. 47 of the Child Care Act, 1991 I direct:

(a) A Court Review of this case on 8 November 2018 to ascertain:

(i) how the child is progressing in his foster placement at that time;

(ii) whether each parent has persevered in their desire to attain and maintain a substance free lifestyle;

(iii) whether they have attended every scheduled or random drug screening test requested by the social work department or drug treatment centre;

(iv) whether each parent has attended care planning meetings regarding the child;

(v) whether each parent has engaged appropriately with social workers and other child care professionals;

(vi) whether each parent has attended all social work appointments arranged with a view to re-establishing ‘child appropriate’ access


(b) If the parents remain stable in their recovery in all respects and if there are no further complicating child protection issues, it is open to the parents to bring an Application under s. 22 of the Child Care Act, 1991 to vary or Discharge the Care Order.

(c) I approve the Care Plan and note that the Guardian Ad Litem is satisfied with the Care Plan.

(d) The Agency is directed to provide each parent with all supports necessary to assist each of them participating meaningfully in statutory reviews concerning the child.

(e) I direct that the Agency provide the child in a timely manner with all necessary remedial and therapeutic services as identified in paragraphs 6.11, 6.12, 6.18, 6.19 and 6.25 of the GAL Report to Court. The Agency is to provide all other remedial and therapeutic services for the child and as may be assessed and necessary in the annual reviews of the Care Plan;

(f) The Agency is directed to re-enter the Case before the Court in the event that the child’s current foster placement is materially altered or breaks down or should the Agency seek to change the current foster placement.

(g) The Agency is directed to re-enter the case before the Court if a social worker is not assigned to the case for a period of four weeks;

(h) The Agency is directed to re-enter the case before the Court in the event that a fostering link worker is not assigned to the case for a period of four weeks;

(i) The Agency is directed to re-enter the Case before the Court in the event that the Agency fail to comply with the regulatory Child in Care review framework and timetable;

(j) The Agency is directed to re-enter the case before the Court on 4 January 2029 (should the child remain in the care of the Agency at that time) in order for his needs to be assessed at that time in the context of “after care” services.

(k) I direct that for any planned or unplanned re-entry of this case before the court that the Guardian Ad Litem for the child should re-appointed to the case and provided with six weeks prior notice of the re-entry. The Guardian should also be re-appointed to the case in the event of any application under section 22 of the 1991 Act.

(l) If the GAL in this case is no longer available at that time then the CFA is to bring an application to the Court pursuant to Section 23 of the 1991 Act for the purposes of having a GAL appointed.

Judge Rosemary Horgan

06/07/2017