Child and Family Agency and IO and Another (Care Order)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: District Court (Ireland)
• Neutral Citation: [2014] IEDC 10
• Year: 2014
• Date: 2014

[2014] IEDC 10

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

CHILD AND FAMILY AGENCY (CFA)

APPLICANT

AND

IO

FIRST NAMED RESPONDENT

AND

BO

SECOND NAMED RESPONDENT

CHILD CARE ACT 1991 – SECTION 18 (1)

IN THE MATTER OF A, B, C AND D CHILDREN

25 March 2014

1. This is an applicat ion for a care order under sec tion 18(1) (b) and (c) of the Child Care Act 1991 (herein after referred to as ‘the

1991 Act’) in respect of four children aged 9 years, 8 years, 5 ye ars, and 4 years respec tively.

2. The c hildren’s mother is legally represented in the proceedings. She c onsents to t he making of the c are order and ac cept s that the

threshold criterion for the making of care orders were met by t he Child and Family Agency (CFA) in the c ircumstances.

3. The c hildren’s father is also legally represented in the proceedings but he did not appear in court; his legal representative did not

oppose the orders sought by the CF A.

4. The c hildren’s separate interests in t he proceedings were highlighted by their Guardian ad Litem (GAL).

5. All four children are currently in the c are of the CFA pursuant to interim care orders made in early 2013 and extended by the Court

since that date to t he date of hearing.

Background

6. Both mother and father emigrated to this c ountry in or about 1996. T he father is a v ery hard worker and takes pride in his

employment stat us and his work. The mother is a full time carer for the c hildren. She is very isolated with limited social or family

supports and has a poor c ommand of the English language. The marriage has been under pressure for some time and the mother

suspect ed that her husband had another partner and family other than hers.

7. The Health Servic e Executive (now replaced by t he CFA) bec ame involved with this family due to their conc erns that the mother

was st ruggling to c are for the children unsupported.

8. During 2010 the CFA had c oncerns regarding reports of domestic violence betwe en the parents, the mother’s isolation and fragile

mental health, her care of t he children and her unwillingness to engage with the CFA. In 2011 the CFA c oncerns focused on a n injury

suffered by t he youngest c hild where the nature of the injury (a spiral fracture of the distal left humerus) was not consistent with t he

mechanism of injury reported by the mother.

9. Significant effo rts were made to sc affold the children’s care within their family unit from August 2011 until the dat e of hearing.

Following a child protect ion case c onference held in September 2011 a c hild protection plan was put in place involving private family

friends caring for the c hildren supported by the Soc ial Work Department to enable t he mother to address her mental health issues.

This arrangement continued for a number of weeks and the c hildren were then returned home. It was agreed t hat t he fat her would

ensure that t he mother had the benefit of a c hild-minder during the day and that he would care f or the c hildren at the weekend. T he

CFA financed a parental capac ity a ssessment by a psyc hologist namely Dr ABL. The psyc hologist suggested that a psychiatric

assessment was nec essary. It took some time before the seriousness of the mother’s mental ill health was diagnosed.

10. Unfortunately, and for a number of interconnec ted reasons, the supports a nd interventions att empted by the CFA and the parents

did not suffice to ensure ‘good enough’ parenting for the c hildren with their mother when the marital relationship disintegrated.

11. The CFA brought proceedings under sect ion 19 of the 1991 Act in early 2013 seeking a supervision order in respect of the

children. These proce edings were adjourned to allow both mother and father t o source legal advic e and assistanc e regarding the

proceedings and the matte rs at issue. T he CFA engaged in dialogue with bot h parents during that period so as to endeavour t o agree

a satisfac tory child protect ion plan until the matter came back to court one week later. T heir goal was to put a cordon of care in

place which would address their conc erns and allow the c hildren to remain at home. However due to an impasse in that dialogue their

conc erns escalat ed rather than abat ed and in early 2013 they sought an emergency care order under sect ion 13 of the 1991 Ac t in

order to protec t t he children whom they believed to be at immediate and serious risk of harm.

12. It has now bee n diagnosed that t he c hildren’s mother suffers from a significant psychiat ric illness which has impaired her capac ity

to parent her c hildren. This was c onceded by her legal representatives to be a key fac tor in the case.

13. Both psychological and soc ial work parental capac ity asse ssments undertaken found that s he does not hav e the c apacity to

provide adequate and safe parenting for her children for a number of reasons. In addition to her diagnosis of schizophrenia in 2013,

the mother has limited personal resources. She has been assess ed as func tioning within the borderline or mild intellect ual disability

range. She has very limited parenting knowledge and is socially isolated. She is also bereaved in the aftermath of her marriage

breakdown. She has only very basic fluency in the English language, she has not managed to make friends and has become socially

isolated despite being in Ireland for some time.