Health Service Executive -v- CM (Access - Independent Psychologist)

CourtDistrict Court (Ireland)
JudgeHorgan P.
Judgment Date23 October 2013
Neutral Citation[2013] IEDC 17
Case OutcomeApproved
Date23 October 2013
[2013] IEDC 17
AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT
HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE
APPLICANTS
- AND
CM
RESPONDENT
CHILD CARE ACT, 1991 - SECTION 37
IN THE MATTER OF A CHILD
23 October 2013
1. This is an applicat ion under S.37 of the Child Care Act , 1991 (herein after referred to as ‘the 1991 Act’) by an incarcerat ed parent
regarding access t o a child in the care of the HSE and an applicat ion by the parent under S.47 of the said Ac t for t he appointment of
an independent psychologist t o undertake an asse ssment in respect of a Child (aged 7).
2. I am satisfied that the Dublin Metropolitan District has jurisdiction to hear this applicat ion.
3. The views and interests of each of the c hild were represented in these proceedings by their Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) who indicated
to t he Court the c hild’s wishes and feelings regarding access.
4. The c hild is in the care of Health Service Exec utive (HSE) under S.18 (1) of the 1991 Act, a Care Order was granted on the 4 May
2007 and the child was plac ed with HSE Approved Fost er Carers.
5. The c hild initially enjoyed twic e weekly access with the pa rent in Prison and this acc ess was consensually reduced t o once per
week in 2009 to meet the ev olving needs of the c hild. In July 2013 access between t he parent and t he c hild was reduced to o nce a
fortnight and the parent object s to t he manner in which this reduction was implemented and seeks t o increase the number of acc ess.
6. The parent gave evidence of a wa rm and loving relationship with the child, and tot al satisfa ction with the c are of the child in the
foster plac ement. The parent also expressed conce rn and dispute about the process whereby acc ess was reduced to once per
fortnight, the parent was c oncerned that the case remained unallocated t o a soc ial worker for a period. Prior to t he reduct ion in
acc ess the parent had been t old by the previous soc ial worker that te lephone contac t with the c hild would be available, this was
confirmed by letter. However, t he Social Work team Leader raised objections when the parent t ried to c ontact the child as directed
by the let ter and the parent has since not been allowed t elephone acc ess with t he c hild.
7. The parent also outlined in evidence that around 50 scheduled ac cess visits were missed in a 20 month period and some visits were
cut short. Prior notice was not provided nor was t here a formal explanation as t o why a visit was c ancelled. Missed visits w ere not
made up for. It was t he parent understands t hat ac cess visits were t o be provided for two hours. The parent also out lined a desire
for additional acc ess for c elebrations held for parents and their c hildren in the prison, including graduation for junior and leaving
certific ates, s ummer schools and Christmas and Easter parties. Such additional unsc heduled acces s was refused without reason. T he
parent sought ac cess once per week for two hours in addition to telephone and posta l acc ess and ac cess on special oc casions. T he
parent wished to be consulted a nd informed of dec ision made conc erning the child and to receive t he child’s school reports. T he
parent object ed to t he manner in which the child was informed about the parent ’s incarceration, shortly bef ore a sc heduled acce ss
visit.
8. The Soc ial Work Team Leader outlined in evidence the rat ionale grounding the HSE decision to reduce ac cess. The issue of acc ess
was discusse d in a Child in Care Statutory Meet ing held in the Prison in March 2013 to fac ilitate the parent but t he issue did not
present at that t ime. The child’s foste r mother then raised concerns about the c hild’s presentation after ac cess and sta ted t hat the
child was asking questions about w hy the parent was in prison, and also asking questions relating to the other parental identity. The
persistence of questions on t hese topic s was a cause of professional conce rn and reduced acc ess was part of the st rategy to
address these c oncerns. A subsequent st rategy meeting involving all those with a professional involvement in the case held in July
2013. This meeting was att ended by the F amily Support Worker, the Psyc hologist, the Acc ess Worker and the T eam Leader and the
Foster Carer’s daughter who plays a role in the child’s life. The meeting determined that parent a nd child acc ess should be reduced
from once per week to onc e per fortnight. The dec ision and the rational for the decision were subsequently explained to t he parent.
Preserving the child’s relationship with the c urrent foster c arers was a primary concern in the decision making process. It was
conc eded that a significant number of acc ess visits had been canc elled.
9. The Clinical Educat ional Psychologist evidence d that her role was advisory only. She advised t he HSE regarding the management of
the c ase, as she also advised the HSE in the cases of tw o other unrelated fost er children in the household. She did not meet wit h this
child and did not observe ac cess; she did not meet or advise the parent in prison. She at tended Stat utory Meetings regarding the
child in an advisory capac ity. She advised the HSE to provide play therapy to address t he child’s presenting distress, and t his has
now had the des ired effect . The purpose of acc ess in her opinion was sec ondary to t he child’s sec urity in the fost er placement.
10. The GAL stat ed that the c hild loves the parent a nd looks forward to seeing the parent each week. The c hild’s express wishes
were to s ee the parent every day. T he GAL said that there was no issue with regard to t he quality of t he relationship between parent
and child or the nat ure of the visits between parent and child which was one of t he nicest relationships observed and the quality of
an observed ac cess visit was exc ellent. He noted t hat the parent needs to be supported psyc hologically in taking parental decisions
which may seem counterintuitive to a parent.
11. The GAL conc luded that t he decision to reduce ac cess was t aken as a delayed reac tion to the c hild’s age appropriate quest ions.
A Report which was procured from the play therapist was not c onsidered before the dec ision was made to reduce ac cess. The GAL
noted that there were gaps in the files which did not cont ain minutes from multi-disciplinary meetings, and there was no doc umented
evidence of due process e ngaged in to reduce parent /child acc ess.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT