A Mother and A Father and A Health and Social Care Trust and in the matter of TY (No 2) (A male child aged 4 years)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McFarland J |
| Judgment Date | 21 March 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] NIFam 5 |
| Court | Family Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 21 March 2023 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2023] NIFam 5
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: McF12108
ICOS: 18/092819/02
Delivered: 21/03/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
FAMILY DIVISION
OFFICE OF CARE AND PROTECTION
___________
Between:
A MOTHER AND A FATHER
Applicants
-v-
A HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE TRUST
Respondents
IN THE MATTER OF TY (No 2) (A MALE CHILD AGED 4 YEARS)
___________
The mother and father appeared as litigants in person
Mr T Ritchie (instructed by the Directorate of Legal Services) for the Trust
Ms G Brady (instructed by McCollum Solicitors) for the Children’s Court Guardian on
behalf of TY
___________
McFARLAND J
Introduction
[1] The parents have made an application to discharge a care order made on
19 April 2021 in respect of their child. The reasons for making that order are set out
in a written judgment Re TY [2021] NIFam 11. I have anonymised this judgment to
protect the identity of the child. I have used the same cipher for the name of the
child. Nothing can be published that will identify TY.
[2] TY was born in late September 2018 and was made the subject of an
emergency protection order on 1 October 2018, followed by an interim care order on
8 October 2018, with the proceedings concluding in April 2021 with the final care
order. The care plan was, and remains, that TY would reside with his maternal
grandparents with supervised contact with the parents.
2
[3] At para [52] of the earlier judgment I set out the conclusions as to my
evaluation of the future risk of significant harm at the date of intervention which
was the date of TY’s birth:
“I am therefore satisfied that on carrying out the
evaluation exercise of the likelihood of harm at the time of
TY’s birth that there was a real possibility that he would
suffer significant harm in the care of his father, and
further that the mother would not have been willing to
acknowledge that risk and put in place sufficient
safeguards within the home environment to reduce or
eliminate the risk of harm.”
The risk of significant harm in relation to the father was evidenced by the serious
injuries that he caused to his older child, and half-sibling to TY, and by lifestyle
issues. These injuries were a fracture to the skull and a spiral fracture to the arm
when the older child was five weeks old.
[4] The findings are set out in the earlier judgment at para [33] in the following
terms:
“(a) When [the older child] was 5 weeks old he was in
the care of the father. The child suffered a fractured skull
and a spiral fracture to the left humerus. The father has
pleaded guilty to wilfully causing those injuries. It is
probable that the father was under the influence of drugs
at the time. The most likely cause of the injuries was that
[the child] fell out of the father’s arms striking his head on
the floor or other object which caused the fracture to the
skull. The father then grabbed the child’s left arm and
pulled the child with force off the ground causing the
spiral fracture to the humerus;
(b) The father had never given what could be
regarded as a truthful explanation for these injuries but
had conceded responsibility by his plea of guilty and
acceptance of the Crown case [against him]. The father
had given dishonest explanations both before and since
his plea of guilty and had sought to mislead medical
practitioners, social workers and the mother as to what
actually happened;
(c) The father had a chronic problem with regard to
the consumption of illegal drugs. He persistently
maintained his addiction from his late teens. He had been
To continue reading
Request your trial