Health Service Executive -v- LC & anor (Care Order - Substance Abuse)

CourtDistrict Court (Ireland)
JudgeHorgan P.
Judgment Date29 May 2013
Neutral Citation[2013] IEDC 14
Case OutcomeApproved
Date29 May 2013
[2013] IEDC 14
AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT
HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE
APPLICANT
-AND-
LC & DW
RESPONDENT
CHILD CARE ACT, 1991— SECTION 18
IN THE MATTER OF CHILD 5 AND CHILD 6
29 May 2013
1. This is an applicat ion for a Care Order under section 18 of t he Child Care Act, 1991 (herein after referred to as ‘t he 1991 Act’) in
respect of tw o children, Child 5 and Child 6.
2. The respondent mother has six children in all. Her first child was born to her when s he was 15 years old and her sixth c hild was
born last year. T he Respondent mother has had a very difficult life and is acknowledged by all professionals dealing with her to be a
polite and personable woman.
3. Child 5 is aged one year and seven months and Child 6 is eight months old.
4. The mother and fat her, who are the f irst and sec ond named respondents in the proceedings, have t hree children together and
although they have had periods living apart from one another, t hey were residing as a c ouple when child 5 was born. Shortly
thereafte r, however, their relationship deteriorated and arising from serious conc erns of c hild neglect due t o parental substanc e abuse
coupled with a c haotic lifestyle and failure to a ttend t o the child’s health needs, Child 5 was received into the c are of t he HSE
pursuant to an Inte rim Care Order on 7 February 2012. The Interim Care Order has been extended on sev enteen oc casions to the
date of hearing. A reunification plan for Child 5 with her mother was unsuc cessf ul.
5. The respondent mother indicat ed to t he HSE that t he second named respondent was not t he biological father of the c hild and
named another man as the biological father. This man enjoyed acc ess with Child 5 but ultimately sought DNA confirmation of his
paternity which e stablished earlier this year that he was not in fact the biological fat her. The sec ond named respondent was
ultimately found t o be Child 5’s biological father. He has expressed the wish to be involved in Child 5’s life as she grows up but
indicated to the Court t hrough his legal representat ive that he was prepared to consent to t he HSE application for a Care Order until
Child 5 attains the age of eighteen ye ars because he believed that t his was in her best interests at this time and he was unable to
care for her at this time.
6. The mother entered into a relationship with another man after Child 5 was taken into Care and it has now been e stablished that
this man is the biological father of Child 6 although he has never t aken a part in Child 6’s life or expressed the desire to do s o. The
mother endeavored to beco me substance free prior to Child 6’s birth but was unable to do so. Child 6 was born with t he symptoms of
neo-natal abst inence sy ndrome and was rec eived into voluntary c are shortly aft er her birth. She is placed in foster c are with Child 5’s
foster parents.
7. I am satisfied that all relevant parties have been properly served with notice of these proc eedings. Both the f irst and sec ond
named respondents were legally represented in the proceedings. T he father of Child 6 was not represented and did not participate in
the procee dings; however, I am satisfied on the ev idence of t he soc ial worker that he was duly served with the proc eedings and was
also verbally reminded by the soc ial worker of the hearing dates fixed by the Court for t he proceedings.
8. I am satisfied that this District has jurisdiction to hear this application.
9. The c hildren are too young to e xpress their views in relation to these proceedings but t heir interests are represented in these
proceedings by their Guardian Ad Litem. T he Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) indicated t o the Court her support for a Care Order in respect of
each c hild and recommended that such Order be made until they att ain the age o f 18 years respec tively.
10. As there was no appearance by the first named respondent on day one of t his two day hearing, she was represented in the
proceedings by her solicitor who c ontested the making of the Care Order. The s econd named respondent indicated his c onsent to the
making of a Care Order subject to ac cess being put in place for him. The third named respondent (Child 6’s father) was not legally
represented and did not partic ipate in the proc eedings. The HSE’s application procee ded to be hea rd on full proof.
11. The HSE brought this applicat ion on the basis t hat Child 5’s health, development, and welfare had been avoidably impaired or
neglected a s a matter of fact and are likely to be avoidably impaired or neglecte d if returned to t he care of either of her parents at
this time. In the c ase of t he mother, this was alleged t o be due to the risk of unintentional harm and neglect due to her long-standing
substance abuse over a period of 15 ye ars resulting in passive neglect and her fa ilure to engage regularly with urine analysis or
engage in therapeutic services off ered to her to overcome her addiction and her inability to maintain stable living arrangements. Child
6 was ta ken into care shortly f ollowing her birth due to the apprehension of suc h unintentional neglect whic h would result in avoidable
impairment to her health, development, and welfare if returned t o the c are of her mother. The a pprehended risk arose from the
respondent mother’s inability to ga in any tract ion on her substance addiction, homelessness, and lifestyle whic h affec ted her parental
capac ity and ability t o care f or vulnerable newborn child.
12. The HSE’s application was delayed and complicated in respect of Child 5 by virtue of the fa ct that w hen she was t aken into ca re,
the respondent mother indicated t hat the sec ond named respondent was not in fac t the Child 5’s biological fat her but that another
person was her biological father. Fo llowing a lengthy process, howeve r, this man was discounted as the biological fat her and the
second named respondent was a ffirmed as Child 5’s biological father following the c ompletion of DNA test s on 13 May 2013. The
second named respondent has now informed the HSE and the Court through his legal advisor that he wishes t o have regular acc ess
with Child 5 and build a relationship with her. He was present in Court during the hearing and consented t o the making of a Care Order
in respect of her.

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