Tusla: Child and Family Agency and COS & Anor

• Judge: Daly J.
• Judgment Date: 31 October 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] IEDC 16
• Case Outcome: Approved
• Court: District Court (Ireland)
• Date: 31 October 2014

[2014] IEDC 16

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

TUSLA Child and Family Agency

-AND-

COS

first named Respondent

and

AJ

second named Respondent

CHILD CARE ACT, 1991- SECTION 18(1)

IN THE MATTER OF Child 1, Child 2 & Child 3, Children

31 October 2014

1. This is an applicat ion pursuant to s.18 of the Child Care Act 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1991 Act’) by t he Applicant

Agency (previously the Health Service Execut ive and now Tusla, the Child and Family Agency ) for a c are order in respect of each o f

the c hildren and the Court is informed that the order sought is an order until eac h child att ains their majority. T his application is

supported by the children’s Guardian Ad Litem.

2. At t he hearing of this applicat ion the fat her was in att endance at Court and legally represented. The father c onsented t o the

application and requested a full review of the c hildren’s progress in care a fter one yea r.

3. At t he hearing of this applicat ion the mother was not in at tendance in Court. Her legal representative was present but was not

instructed by his client in this matter.

4. Notwithstanding the father’s co nsent to the making of a care order and the non- participation of the mother in the proceedings it is

incumbent upon the court to hear and asse ss the ev idence to determine that the relevant threshold for interference with the f amily’s

various rights has been met and to examine the welfare c onsiderations of the children.

BACKGROND

5. At t he time of this hearing Child 1 was aged eleven years, Child 2 was aged nine years and Child 3 was aged eight ye ars.

6. The f amily first c ame to the at tention of the applicant in 2010 when anonymous referrals were received by t he social work

department in April, June and August regarding conc erns of t he respondent parent’s abuse of alcohol and the children’s exposure to

domestic violence in the family home. The c hildren’s school also referred generalised conc erns to t he Department and a particular

conc ern about the f ather’s alcohol use t hat same year. T he conc erns appeared to a bate and t he file was c losed in December 2010.

7. The Applicant received anot her anonymous referral in March 2011 subsequent to an incident outside t he family home at w hich the

children were present. T he file was again c losed in June 2011. A further referral was received by t he applicant f rom the gardaí in

October 2011 and the case has been open since that t ime.

8. A child protec tion cas e confe rence was held in March 2012 around which time the parents removed the children to t he UK. While in

the UK the mother and the c hildren were made subject s of police protect ion further to an a ssault upon the mother by t he father. T he

parents returned to this jurisdiction and the c hildren were made the subjec ts of interim care orders later in March 2012. They were

soon afte r placed in the voluntary c are of the applicant unt il further interim care orders were granted in December 2013, which orders

have been extended f rom time to time since t hat dat e.

EVIDENCE

9. The predominant child protect ion concerns leading to and subsequent to the c hildren’s recept ion into care may be summarised as

the parent’s long-st anding alcohol addiction, various incidents of domestic violence between t he parents and t he children’s exposure

to t he parent’s alcohol misuse and domestic violence. T his is supported by the garda evidence who also e xpressed concerns about

the c ondition of the f amily home and the children’s lack of supervision.

10. The soc ial work evidence inter alia described the supports of fered to t he parents to address their alco hol addiction and their

difficulties in managing their relationship. The evidenc e is that neither parent has addressed t heir difficulties to a sufficient degree for

the applicant to c onsider reunificat ion of the children with either parent at this time.

11. The soc ial work evidence c annot c ontradict t he assertion t hat t he parents are now separated and c annot c ontradict the

assertion that the mother has at this time remained sober for the pas t three months.

12. There is no evidenc e before the Court of any f ormal assessment of t he parents c apacity, or lack t hereof, to parent the c hildren,

nor is there evidence of the impact on the c hildren of their experience in t heir parents care and neither is t here any soc ial work

evidence of the asse ssment of the risk to t he c hildren if they are to be ret urned to their parents care.

13. The guardian, who supports t he applicant’s c ase, has given ev idence of Child 1’s difficulties with managing his/her anger and

defiant behaviours. She agrees w ith the dec ision to refer Child 1 to a c hild and adolescent mental health service and suggest s the

child requires psychological assessment of his/her psyc hological funct ioning and coping abilities. She not es some conc ern for Child 2’s