Child and Family Agency and NC & Anor (Care Order - Proportionality)

• Judge: Daly J.
• Judgment Date: 11 November 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] IEDC 18
• Case Outcome: Approved
• Court: District Court (Ireland)
• Date: 11 November 2014

[2014] IEDC 18

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

Child and Family Agency

Applicant

-and-

NC

Respondents

and

CC

Respondents

CHILD CARE ACT, 1991- SECTION 18(1)

IN THE MATTER OF A Child

11 November 2014

1. This is an applicat ion pursuant to s.18 of the Child Care Act 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1991 Act’) by t he Applicant, t he

Child and Family Agency, f or a care order in respect of a child. The Applicant is seeking a care order for t he child until he/she att ains

his/her majority at age eighteen years. T his application is supported by t he child’s Guardian Ad Litem. At the time of this hearing the

child was aged 3 ye ars.

2. The respondent mother was in attendanc e in court f or the hearing of this applicat ion. Counsel on her behalf indicated t he mother’s

opposition to t he making of the order. T he respondent fat her was also in at tendance in Court. Counsel for the respondent father

indicated his opposition to the making of t he order also.

3. The applicant has c alled evidence of t he initial social work assessment of t he mother’s difficulties in caring for C and the s upport

offered to her to assist in his/her care, and suggests her periods of engagement were not sust ained and that repeated suggestions t o

enhance her parenting were not implemented by the mother. The s ocial worker who conduct ed a core assessment of her capac ity to

parent the c hild was not a vailable to give evidence. The soc ial work evidence, while ac knowledging that the mother has herself

experienced a difficult c hildhood, suggests this t rans-generational deficit has likely left her without a parenting ‘blueprint’. An

assessment of t he child’s needs has been c arried out and has c oncluded that neither parent has t he capacity to provide for the

child’s safe and predict able care now and into the fut ure. A care o rder is sought for the c hild rather than reunification with either

parent as t he applicant suggest s there has be en no sustained period of improvement in the mother’s ability to parent or keep the c hild

safe nor has t he father addressed his difficulties in the t wo years of social work involvement wit h this family.

4. The applicant has given evidence that the respondent fa ther has at times engaged reasonably well with the soc ial work

department but suggests this engagement has increased as the date for the hearing of t his application has approac hed. The

Applicant argues that significant c oncerns regarding the saf ety of his acc ommodation, his on-going drug and alcohol misuse, and his

relationship problems with the mother are sufficient bars to reunification of the c hild to his sole ca re. The parenting c apacity

assessment of t he father wa s discontinued due t o his failure to disclose important information regarding his past and members of his

family with whom he resides which raise significant conc erns for the c hild’s safety should the child be cared fo r by his/her father.

5. The respondent mother, herself a vulnerable young woman who has direct experience of t he care sy stem, gave evidence to t he

court where s he acknowledged her drug addiction and outlined to the c ourt her plan over the c oming months to address t his problem

through attending a residential treat ment and follow-up programme. Counsel on her part suggests the question to be addressed in this

case is a question of a care order for t he child of a more proportionate duration considering his/her young age and limited

understanding, clearly sett ing out to t he parents what they must ac hieve in their personal circumstances to avoid a further order of

longer duration.

6. The respondent father did not give e vidence and put the Agenc y on full proof, as is his right. Counsel on his behalf submits he

acc epts his current acc ommodation is unsuitable for him to care for t he child and that he cannot today care for t he child. She also

submits t he Agency has failed in it’s duty t o conduc t a proper assessment of either parents c apacity to parent and suggests a care

order to the c hild’s age of majority does not nec essarily guarantee the c hild certainty or stability. She not es the Const itution prefers

parents to third parties and argues the evident ial shortcomings and the doctrine of judicial restraint suggests a c are order of shorter

duration, allowing access to t he father for t he purpose of reunificat ion, is proportionate in this case .

7. The c ourt appointed Guardian ad Litem f or the c hild noted that he/s he has had a very disrupted e arly childhood and he describes

serious deficits of parenting on the mother’s part. He questions t he father’s motivation and c ommitment t o parenting the c hild. He

recommends it is in the c hild’s best interests for a c are order to be made for the duration of his/her minority and that a full review in

one year is a fa ir and balanced approach for t he parents to focus on their own needs and rec overy.

THRESHOLD CRITERIA FOR CARE ORDER

8. Sect ion 18 of the 1991 Act set s out the c riteria for taking a child into care.

“18.—(1) Where, on the applicat ion of the Child and Family Agency with

respect to a c hild, the c ourt is sat isfied that—

(a) the c hild has been or is being assaulted, ill-treat ed, neglected or sexually abused;