Child and Family Agency and SH & SMcG (Care Order - Substance Misuse - Parents Left the Jurisdiction)

• Judge: Daly J.
• Judgment Date: 05 March 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] IEDC 9
• Case Outcome: Approved
• Court: District Court (Ireland)
• Date: 05 March 2014

[2014] IEDC 09

The District Court

The Child and Family Agency

Applicant

-AND-

SH

Respondent

and

SMcG

Respondent

Child Care Act 1991 – Section 18

in the matter of Child S, a child.

5 March 2014

1. The Child and Family Agency (the CFA) has made an application for a care order in respect of Child S.

2. I am satisfied the respondents have been properly served with not ice of these proc eedings and that the Court has jurisdiction to

hear this application.

3. The applicant was legally represented in thes e proceedings.

4. On the day of the hearing neither respondent was present in c ourt, having returned to [a neighbouring jurisdiction] in December

2013. Both respondents were legally represented; however t heir legal representatives were not instructed for the purpose of this

application.

5. The interest s of the child, the subject of these proceedings, was represented by t he court appointed Guardian ad Litem (GAL),

Miss CD, who was represented by Mr BB..

Background

6. The bac kground to this c ase c an be set out as follows. The family has been known t o the CF A soc ial work department since July

2012. At that time the Agenc y was not ified of c hild protection c oncerns regarding the respondent mother’s unborn child, Child S, from

[a neighbouring jurisdiction’s] social work services. T he respondent parents had been living in [a city in t hat jurisdiction] up until July

2012. Their first child, a full sibling of Child S, was born there in early 2008. Prior to the birth of t heir first child the soc ial services [in

that jurisdiction] c onducte d a pre-birth asses sment and case c onference and a c are plan was put in plac e for that child. However

despite this t he soc ial services [in that jurisdiction] remained conc erned for that child’s failure to thrive and the neglect of that child

in the ca re of the respondent parents. T hey assessed a risk of imminent harm to t hat c hild which resulted in a child protec tion order

being granted in August 2008. A specialist parenting asse ssment was c arried out which c oncluded the respondent parents did not

have the c apacity to parent that child due to their poly-drug misuse, domestic a ssaults, t heir offending behaviour and their lack of

engagement with services and s upports. This ass essment determined that child should not be ret urned to his/her parents c are and

should be placed for adopt ion. An adoption order has since been made in respect of t hat c hild in the [courts of that jurisdiction].

7. A pre-birth c ase c onference w as held in respect of t he respondent mother’s second pregnancy in [the c ity in that neighbouring

jurisdict ion which the respondent parents resided] in July 2012. The dec ision taken at t hat c onference was for t he then unborn baby

(Child S, the child the s ubject of these proceedings) to be placed on t he c hild protection register there. It appears that subsequent

to t his decision of t he social service s in [that neighbouring jurisdict ion] the respondent parents made the decision t o relocate to [a

city here in Ireland] before the birth of their c hild, Child S. The respondent mother is herself Irish and has family in [two c ities in

Ireland].

8. On their removal to Ireland neither parent could be considered to be stable on methadone treatment and admitted using opiates

prior to coming to Ireland and while attending for drug treatment in a city here in Ireland. A pre-birth case conferenc e meeting was

held in August 2012 which determined the likely risk to Child S to be high. T he reasons for det ermining this risk were the parent’s drug

use and the respondent mother’s opiate use during pregnancy, the parents did not appear to be genuinely cooperating with t he soc ial

work department and therefore it was determined necessary to bring an applicat ion to remove Child S into care shortly af ter his/her

birth.

9. Child S was born in September 2012 and an interim care order was sought and grante d in September 2012. Child S was rec eived

into the c are of t he Child and Family Agency and has remained in foster care sinc e that date.

Decision

10. I have heard the ev idence of Miss COR, the allocate d social worker of t he professional social work assessment of t he respondent

parents. The conc lusions of the soc ial work assessment may be summarised as follows; the soc ial work department has not seen a

significant improvement in the parents’ c ommitment to address the issues which might lead to Child S being returned to t heir care,

they have not aff ect ed positive c hange in their life and would be unable to provide a saf e and protec tive environment for Child S. The

social work department has identified the risk fac tors present which are likely to impact on the parenting of Child S to include t heir

drug misuse, homelessness, criminality, the dynamic of their relationship, domestic violence and t he parents asse ssed personality

disorders. The soc ial worker’s evidence is that the respondent parent s have great ly minimised the eve nts leading to Child S being

placed in care and continue t o refuse t o acc ept any responsibility f or their part in this dec ision; neither do they appear t o have any

insights with regard to t heir behaviour which suggests they will have difficulty aff ect ing positive change in t heir lifestyles into the

future. It is t he professional opinion given in evidence by the social worker on behalf of t he social work department that the

respondent parents pose a significant risk to t he health, development and welfare of Child S should he/she be returned to t heir care

and that Child S’s health development and we lfare is likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected s hould he/she be returned to t he

care of his/her parents.