Health Service Executive -v- AR & anor (Inadequate Care Plan -Temporary Care Order)

JudgeHorgan P.
Judgment Date07 May 2013
Neutral Citation[2013] IEDC 11
Case OutcomeApproved
Date07 May 2013
CourtDistrict Court (Ireland)
[2013] IEDC 11
AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT
HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE
APPLICANT
-AND-
AR & PR
RESPONDENTS
CHILD CARE ACT, 1991— SECTION 18
IN THE MATTER OF CHILD 8
7 May 2013
Background History Overview
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 Child 8, who is fiftee n years old. Child 8 is the youngest c hild of the family of eight a nd she was admitted t o the c are of
the Health Service Executive (HSE) on 7 July 2012 following the exercise of sect ion 12 of the Child Care Act 1991 on 9 July 2012 by
An Garda Síochána. The c ircumstances surrounding the exercise of this sec tion by An Garda Síochána are unusual, as t he young
person herself walked into the Garda Stat ion and confided to the Garda on duty in the public of fice t hat she had been physically,
emotionally and sexually abused by her fat her. An Emergency Care Order was made by the Court on 9 July 2012 and has been
extended on nine occ asions to the date of hearing, on the c onsent of eac h of her parents.
2. Child 8’s mother is legally represented in the proceedings and present in Court. Her father has dec lined to participat e in the
proceedings, though he c onsented in writing to various extensions of the Inte rim Care Order granted in excess of an eight day period.
3. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing of t he proceedings has been properly served.
4. I am satisfied the [District given] has jurisdiction to hear this applicat ion.
5. The views and interests of Child 8 were represented in these proc eedings by her Guardian Ad Litem. The Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”)
indicated to the Court her support f or a Care Order in respect of the c hild for a period of one year. However, t he GAL had certa in
reservations regarding the Care Plan and the unc ertainty around some aspect s of t he current plac ement for Child 8.
6. On the day of hearing, the legal team for the mother indicate d to t he Court through their legal representatives her c onsent to the
making of a Care Order in respect of Child 8 for a period of one year, alt hough the Finding of Fac ts doc ument submitted by the HSE
was not admitted by the mother.
7. I have heard the evidence of the Garda who was on dut y in the public off ice in the Garda Stat ion on Saturday 7 July 2012. He took
Child 8’s sta tement and delivered her into the c are of t he HSE and she was brought t o the Sexual Assault and Trauma Unit in the
Hospital. The following day, her and four of her sisters att ended at t he Garda Station and c orroborated her acc ount of physical,
emotional, and sexual abuse of their sister and of t hem over the years. A further sect ion 12 procedure was exec uted by t he same
Garda in respect of the minor sibling, Child 7. The older siblings also stat ed that they had been threatened a nd intimidated by t heir
father in an eff ort to induce them to remain silent. T he fat her has been charged in respec t of numerous counts of rape and sexual
assault and a c harge of t hreatening to kill or cause serious harm to Child 8 and her minor sibling. These c harges are set down for trial
in the Circuit Criminal Court on [date given].
8. I have heard the evidence of the Allocat ed Social Worker who was alloca ted to the c ase in September of 2012. She swore t hat the
content of the Report cont ained in the Booklet of Pleadings at t ab 7 of t he Booklet of Pleadings was true and ac curate to t he best of
her knowledge, information, and belief. She noted from the files that t he family was known to the HSE since February 2000. The initial
disclosure appears to have been from one of the older c hildren who complained to t he Public Health Nurse that his unc le saw his
father beat ing one of his younger brothers. The c omplaint was investigated — the parents de nied the allegation and the c hildren were
interviewed. In January 2003, the mother and some of her daughters were recorded as making complaints of physical and sexual
abuse by the father. A domestic violence remedy was sought by the mother but subsequently t he c omplaints of physic al and sexual
abuse were retrac ted by t he children. While the HSE kept t he file open and transferred the file to the Team Leader for allocation,
nothing further appears to have been act ioned by the HSE. In July 2003, Child 3 presented to a Garda Station alleging physical and
sexual abuse. The c omplaint was investigated by An Garda Síochána and the fat her denied the allegations. In May 2004, Child 5
disclosed in school t hat she wa s being physically and sexually abused by her father and t hat her mother was t he vict im of domestic
violence. When t his complaint wa s investigated ev en though the f ather was s erving a prison sentence f or an unrelated matter, the
family was not united in corroborating the level of abuse. T wo of t he children were received into voluntary care. T he allegations of
CSA were investigate d by the Care Unit and c onfirmed. In 2005, the Social Work Department to ok the position that should the fat her
be released from prison and return home, it would not be a safe plac e for the y ounger children. However, in 2006 when this happened
a Supervision Order was secured in respect of t he younger children. A decision was t aken that because t he mother would remain
home with the children, it was a sufficient protect ive fac tor to address the risk. This professional dec ision is hard to understand
notwithsta nding that the file indicates that no placements w ere available at the time. The Risk assessment carried out by t he
Granada Institute did not have t he benefit of receiving the Report w hich affirmed CSA in respect of Child 4, as Child 4 declined to
make it ava ilable to them. The Risk assessment by the Granada Institute does not appea r to have inc luded any psychometric
evaluation, such a s Stat ic 99 or Able, but t here appears to have been a c linical assessment conc luding that t he father was of low
risk. The HSE were therefore sat isfied that a Supervision Order and anger management would safe guard the family. The two children
in voluntary care returned t o the c are of t he family and the Supervision Order remained in place unt il July 2007. The case remained
open but was not ac tive until Child 8 attended t he Garda Station last year.
9. The Allocat ed Social Worker indicated t hat the mother was now working with the HSE and supporting her daughter in the
placement. Child 8 is not coping well in care. She is engaging in high-risk behaviours and self-harm. She is in therapy and will require
remain in therapy for a very considerable amount of time.
10. I have heard the ev idence of t he Principal Social Worker, who endeavoured to explain to the Court t he difficulties being

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