Book Offer
This will close in 10 seconds
A District Court judge has granted a full Care Order for a five-month-old boy after hearing that neither of his parents had attended any access visits since January and were not present for the care hearing. The child, known as E, has been in care since birth and is described as thriving in a long-term foster placement.
The court heard that the mother has a long history of homelessness, addiction, domestic violence and mental health difficulties. She already has two other young children in care. During her pregnancy, she was homeless, missed all antenatal appointments, and later tested positive for heroin, cocaine and cannabis. The baby was born in early January 2026 and exhibited withdrawal symptoms. Postnatal toxicology tests were positive for cocaine.
Both parents left the newborn in the neonatal intensive care unit for extended periods.
Attempts to assess the wider paternal family did not progress. An Emergency Care Order was granted on 15 January, followed by a Voluntary Care Arrangement and, later, an Interim Care Order, which was extended several times.
The allocated social worker told the court she had been unable to contact either parent regularly. They have no fixed address or phone. Access was arranged three times a week but never took place. The child’s vaccinations and birth registration were delayed due to the parents’ lack of engagement.
The Guardian ad Litem supported the Agency’s application for a full Care Order. She said the child has remained in the same foster home since January, is adored by the foster family, and is “alert, smiling” and thriving. The placement is available to him long-term.
Judge Conor Fottrell reviewed extensive reports and evidence. He found that the threshold under section 18(1)(c) of the Child Care Act 1991 had been met, noting the child’s in utero exposure to drugs, withdrawal symptoms after birth, and the parents’ ongoing addiction, homelessness, and inability to engage with professionals.
The judge said the child requires stability, certainty and security, and that neither parent has shown any capacity to provide a safe, drug-free environment. He granted a full Care Order to age 18, describing the decision as sad but necessary.
The court hopes the parents will re-engage and seek access. They may apply to discharge the order under section 22, and reunification must be considered at statutory reviews. The case will return to court in one year for an update.
Reporting restrictions apply to protect the identities of the child and family.
Pat Coyne
This will close in 10 seconds