A care order until the age of 18 was granted in a rural town for a seven-year-old girl (A) who had been in care on a series of interim and short-term care orders since she was six weeks old. Two older siblings were in care in the same placement. The mother was seeking reunification with her daughter, but the father, from whom the mother was separated for a number of years, consented to the CFA application. The mother was also seeking increased access.
A social worker told the court that the mother first come to the attention of the then health board when she became pregnant at the age of 15. She had lost her first child. She had two more children while still a child, both of whom were in care. She gave birth to A, who had a different father to the older children, and the baby entered voluntary care at the age of six weeks. A care order for two years was made in 2013 and subsequently a number of interim care orders were made and renewed. She was in the same placement as her two half-siblings.
The social worker said that the mother had a mild intellectual disability and did not engage with support services. A psychological assessment took place in 2013, which concluded she did not have the capacity to care for A.
The social worker said that A had no medical issues and was doing well in school. She identified that she was in foster care, that she had two mummies and two daddies. She was aware of the current set of court proceedings and A care order until the age of 18 was granted in a rural town for a seven-year-old girl (A) who had been in care on a series of interim and short-term care orders since she was six weeks old. Two older siblings were in care in the same placement. The mother was seeking reunification with her daughter, but the father, from whom the mother was separated for a number of years, consented to the CFA application. The mother was also seeking increased access.
A social worker told the court that the mother first come to the attention of the then health board when she became pregnant at the age of 15. She had lost her first child. She had two more children while still a child, both of whom were in care. She gave birth to A, who had a different father to the older children, and the baby entered voluntary care at the age of six weeks. A care order for two years was made in 2013 and subsequently a number of interim care orders were made and renewed. She was in the same placement as her two half-siblings.
The social worker said that the mother had a mild intellectual disability and did not engage with support services. A psychological assessment took place in 2013, which concluded she did not have the capacity to care for A.
The social worker said that the mother had been inconsistent with access over the years. She said her own relationship with the mother had been good initially, but had become difficult.
She acknowledged that the concerns the CFA had in 2013 were not the same now. The mother had a new partner for the past five years, with whom she had a young child [B], now a toddler, whom she was caring for well. Asked by the judge if the CFA had considered reunification [with A], she said it had not.
She said that the mother had a mild intellectual disability and had had a very difficult background. She made concerning disclosures at a young age. Her mother died when she was a teenager. The CFA recommended she avail of the advocacy service, and she said she would, but also said she felt under pressure. The CFA was not sure she would accept support if A returned to her care on a full-time basis.
In terms of the risk factors for A, she said she was very settled in foster care and would suffer if she was returned. She acknowledged the CFA had not explored reunification during the time she was in care.
She said she was also the allocated social worker for the two older children. Access with them was OK at the moment. But the return of A to her mother’s care would be negative for them. A herself would be devastated if the care order was not granted, it would disrupt her attachment to her siblings and her foster carer. She did recognise her mother as her birth mother, but it was not her strongest attachment.
The social worker said that the mother had a younger child, B. Her partner supported her in parenting him and he was well cared for.
Asked how the threshold for a care order was met under Section 18 of the Child Care Act, the social worker said that it was under the sub-section stating that the child’s health, development and welfare, especially her emotional and psychological welfare, would be avoidably adversely affected if the care order was not made.
Responding to the mother’s barrister the social worker confirmed that the health board had been contacted by Gardai when the mother was pregnant at the age of 15, though no further steps were taken. Her mother died when she was 15. She had difficult personal relationships. She had child A later and a short care order was made when she withdrew consent to voluntary care. She then met her current partner and the difficulties in her personal relationships were sorted out. She agreed that there was no question about her ability to care for the child they had together, B.
Barrister: “If she can care for a small baby consistently and well, surely she can care for a seven-year-old?”
Social worker: “I agree she had demonstrated she can care for a child.”
Barrister: “We learn to parent by experience. She never had the opportunity with [A]. When her life was chaotic she had more access than she does now. She has been looking for increased access.”
The social worker said there was an incident where the child was upset at access with her siblings, and, also in the light of her knowledge of the proceedings, she felt less secure in her placement.
The GAL solicitor said: “Her knowledge of these proceedings has compromised her contact with and enjoyment of her birth mother. It is the position of the GAL that she should remain in her current home. There have been a number of short-term orders, but she was unaware of that. Her knowledge that her ‘tummy mummy’ wants her to come and live with her has caused her great distress. She has articulated her wishes and feelings very clearly. No-one has challenged this.”
The social worker agreed that the child would be seriously affected by having to move. She also agreed that the child was on a waiting list for psychological help in dealing with the problems she was now experiencing, but did not know when this would commence. The GAL solicitor asked if a private option was being explored and the social worker said this could be considered.
The solicitor added that if the child’s care status was settled, this could create the basis for a different level of contact. But this should be done as part of a plan.
A clinical psychologist told the court that she had met the mother four times and had carried out an assessment. Her cognitive functioning was at a level where she could do the Leaving Certificate Applied with supports. Her limitations meant that at one level she could provide functioning care, but an understanding of the emotional and psychological needs of a child were not yet within her grasp.
She said to take A away from the security she feels in foster care would be emotionally and psychologically annihilating for her. She saw her home as consisting of her foster carers, her sisters and the two dogs in the house. Referring to access, she said there were three children involved who had psychological needs that needed to be addressed, who were distressed and upset, living in uncertainty. A needed time to make sense of it all. “We have to let children know we’ve heard them.”
Mother’s barrister: “Is it not true that where children were adopted and had no contact with their parents for several years they later managed to reunite with their families, with the help of psychologists? It has been done where there was no contact at all. [A] knows her mother, she has had contact with her.”
Psychologist: “It would be unfair to compare these situations with that of a seven-year-old.” The psychologist stressed that A wanted to reassure her foster parents that she loved them, and be reassured that they loved her.
The mother gave evidence relating to her application for increased access. She said access had been taking place in her house every week, without supervision, until the previous summer when it was reduced. The CFA solicitor said that it was the child who wanted access to be reduced. It had involved travelling to another town, she also had access with her father, there were timetabling issues.
The mother’s partner gave evidence of their relationship, which began in 2013. “She’s a wonderful mum,” he said. “I had no dealings with children until I met her, she’s been a massive influence. She’s very devoted to all four of her children. She was a child when she had her first child. Her mother died when she was 15. I know the huge impact that has. She had to deal with that, with having a child at 15, another at 17.
“Half of her life she’s been living in pain. Anyone in this court-room who has kids and tucks them into bed tonight should think her kids are in the care of Tusla.
“I’m there 24/7 with this woman. She is told she has failed [as a parent]. That gets into your head. This is a good woman who has had more problems in her life than most people in this court-house and she deserves a break.
“There are people with children in care who don’t give a damn about them. She loves every one of them. She was pregnant at 15. She had five pregnancies [including losing a baby]. [The mother] wants to be there when those girls are out in [the local town]. If anything happens to them she will be the first there. When they are 18 and out of care, she will be there for them.”
The guardian ad litem told the court that A was very much part of her foster family, and drew her family as consisting of her foster parents, their children and her sisters, who were in the same placement. She had a very strong attachment to them and wanted to remain there. She had said firmly: “I love my family. I don’t want to go.”
Asked about her attitude to access with her mother, the GAL said that this could change if a long-term care order was granted. She added that the mother had made huge progress. She also said that the child had a very good, relaxed relationship with her father, who was very supportive of her relationship with her foster family. Her recommendation was that the child remain in her placement, and that access be increased when she was stabilised there. Her relationship with her mother needed to be worked on.
At the moment she had a feeling of lack of control of what was happening and that had an emotional impact on her. A long-term care order was the way to avoid future damage. Therapeutic intervention was key for her consolidating her relationship with her foster parents and also developing her attachment to her mother.
The judge said she had listened very carefully to the evidence. It was very difficult. Addressing the mother, she said: “It can be quite traumatic to have your whole life talked about by strangers.
“In an ideal world reunification is the preferred option. There is always an option to apply to discharge a care order. That should be known.
“Section 24 [of the Child Care Act] states that I must put the welfare of the child as paramount. There is no question that her mother and father love [A] and she loves them. That will never change. I am not criticising the mother for contesting this application. She loves her child.
“[The mother] does not does want to undertake counselling. I understand it is difficult, being asked to go places she would prefer not to go to. But I would encourage her to rethink that. [B] is a delightful little boy. She has no difficulty in parenting him.
“Access must be child-driven. There is a very clear case here that [A] has been upset. I am going to make a full care order under Section 18 (b) and (c), with access at the discretion of the CFA. The care plan should include suitable psychological supports, and these should be offered to the mother also. There will be a review to see where access is going at the beginning of December.”
