Health Service Executive -v- ED & anor (CO and SO - Neglect and Abuse)

• Judge: Horgan P.
• Judgment Date: 13 January 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] IEDC 1
• Case Outcome: Approved
• Court: District Court (Ireland)

[2012] IEDC 1

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE

APPLICANT

-AND-

ED & JD

RESPONDENTS

CHILD CARE ACT, 1991— SECTION 18(1) AND 19(1)

GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS ACT 1964 — SECTION 11

IN THE MATTER OF CHILD 5, CHILD 6, CHILD 7, CHILD 8, CHILD 9, CHILD 10

13 January 2012

Background History Overview

1. This c ase c oncerns five c hildren of a family of ten in respect of whom the HSE seek full care orders until each of t hem has reached

his or her majority. Two of the five children have a working diagnosis of autism and ADHD; however, improvements in their respective

behaviour and communication since being rec eived into ca re have cas t doubt on this diagnosis and reassessment is to be undertaken.

The five c hildren present with behavioural, educat ional, health, or psychological needs o f varying levels of intensity and complexity.

The evidenc e tendered suggest s that each need significant support from remediation services.

2. The 5 c hildren currently in the interim care of the HSE are:

Child 5 (13 years of age);

Child 7 (9 years of age);

Child 8 (6 years of age);

Child 9 (5 years of age); and

Child 10 (3 years of age).

3. There are t wo more dependent children in the family.

4. Child 6 is 11 years old and the sixth child of t he family. Child 6 was originally taken into HSE care in December 2010 with his siblings

however the HSE found it difficult to locate a suitably proximate fos ter placement for him. Child 6 has a working diagnosis of mild

intellectual disability, speec h and language difficulties, and ADHD. He was originally placed with an older sibling but this plac ement was

untenable in the medium term. He is now placed with his fat her with an array of support services a nd the HSE seek a supervision

order in respect of Child 6. The father see ks an order for the sole c ustody of Child 6 and has been assessed by the HSE as having

sufficient parent al capac ity t o assume this role provided he avails of recommended support service s. The mother is consenting to t his

order. The HSE propose that Child 6 will have only supervised ac cess with his mother.

5. Child 4 is 15 years old and is also a dependent member of t he family. He was originally taken into c are and placed wit h is older

sibling but ultimately returned to t he care of his mother under a supervision order. It was not possible to secure a conventional fost er

placement for Child 4 and the evidence tendered suggests that he has little interest in being in foster ca re or engaging with social

workers. He did engage with the Barnardo’s service over a period of t ime but became alienated when the care worker he had

connec ted moved from that service. He is currently involved with t he Probation and Welfare Service. The HSE is not s eeking a further

supervision order in respect of Child 4 and is satisfied wit h the c are which he is rec eiving with his mother who is fully co-operat ive

with the HSE.

6. The ot her relevant members of t he family are the three older siblings, Child 1 (born in October 1988), and her two children —

Grandchild 1 who is aged se ven and has a diagnosis of a utism and Grandchild 3 aged four months — and Child 2 (born in June 1990)

who has a t wo year old c hild, Grandchild 2. Child 3, born in November 1992, is the e ldest brother and he has a newborn son

(Grandchild 4). Child 3 has a history of anti-soc ial behaviour and acute ps ychological disorder with assoc iated involvement in drugs

and criminal behaviour during adolescenc e. There was a serious st abbing incident perpetrated on t his young man in April 2009 in the

family home which traumatised him and other family members. One year later, there was an alleged self-harm incident which was

again traumatic. This young man resides with his mother but spends significant amounts of t ime with the mother of his young son. He

also visits his fat her.

7. Both Child 1 and Child 2 have provided support t o each of their parents at different t imes. None of the t hree adult siblings have

participated in t he proceedings.

8. There is also a maternal grandmother aged 81 years who lives in Country 1 and a brother of the mother who lives in Ireland;

however, they are not c lose. There is a paternal grandmother aged 77 who lives in Country 1. The extended f amily have played no

part in the proce edings and only a minor part in the history a nd have had little c ontact with the mother, father, or t he family.

9. The history o f the relationship is somewhat unclear. T he mother and father met in or around 1985 and married in Country 1 in 1988.

The t hree older children were born in Country 1 and t he parties lived toget her in in Country 1 until in or around 1993 at whic h point

the parties se parated. The mother’s evidence was t hat she as certained, t hrough something Child 1 said, that her husband was

involved with another woman who was also pregnant with his child when she was pregnant with Child 3. This was upsetting for her as

there was only f our months bet ween his child and their son Child 3. She suffered Po st Natal Depression and a form of react ive

depression and was hospitalised. In the period her children were c ared for by her husband who was now living with his partner and

their daughter. Her evidence was that when she c alled to their residence in order to hav e cont act with her c hildren on her release

from hospital, it was made problematic by her husband’s partner and it was in this c ontext t hat t he court proc eedings in Country 1