In the matter of S (Care Order: Care Plan: Contact)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Gillen J |
| Judgment Date | 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] NIFam 4 |
| Court | Family Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Year | 2006 |
| Date | 15 March 2006 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2006] NIFam 4 Ref:
GILF5505
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
15/03/2006
(subject to editorial corrections)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
FAMILY DIVISION
_______
IN THE MATTER OF S (CARE ORDER: CARE PLAN: CONTACT)
________
GILLEN J
[1] I direct that there should be no identification of the name of the child in
this case or the names of either of the parents or any other person or body that
may lead to the identification of this family.
[2] In order to preserve the anonymity of the parties in this case, I shall
identify the child who is the subject of these applications as S, the mother as Y
and the father as X.
[3] The first application made before me by X was pursuant to Article 20
of the Adoption (NI) Order 1987 to revoke a freeing order granted on 9 June
2003 in respect of S. I acceded to this application. I have already given my
reasons for this at the hearing and I do not propose to reiterate those in the
course of this judgment as they are not relevant to the issues now before me.
Following the revocation, a Trust which I do not propose to name ("the
Trust") applies for a care order under Article 50 of the Children (Northern
Ireland) Order 1995 (hereinafter "the 1995 Order") in respect of S. If
successful, the Trust also seek an order pursuant to Article 53(4) of the 1995
Order to the effect that the court should make an order authorising the Trust
to refuse to allow contact between the child and the mother.
[4] I should state at the outset of this case that the real issues before me
were essentially twofold:
First, the measure of contact which should be afforded to X in the event
of me making a care order. Y had not engaged in this process at all and had
not appeared at this court despite being served with the papers. X recognised
that he could not care for this child, had agreed the threshold criteria and
2
made no submissions with reference to the evidence grounding the care order
proceedings other than on the matter of contact.
Background
[5] Given the nature of the issues in this case, and the confined nature of
dispute between the parties, it is sufficient to give a brief outline of the
background material and the facts which are relevant to the care order
application. A full care order was granted in respect of the child on 27 June
2002 with the care plan of adoption via a freeing order. She was made the
subject of a freeing order on 9 June 2003. Prospective adoptive carers had
initially made an application to adopt S but had withdrawn that application
in June 2004. Thereafter a further placement was not forthcoming and hence
the revocation of the freeing order.
[6] This child is now seven years of age and has experienced considerable
instability in terms of her care in her life to date. The essential problem
surrounding her parents and their inability to provide consistent care for her
arose as a result of alcohol abuse. She has to date experienced at least eight
changes in care arrangement and much instability due to her parents abuse of
alcohol and consequent chaotic lifestyle. She has been assessed as suffering
from foetal alcohol syndrome and the consequences of this were outlined by
Dr Stewart consultant in medical genetics as far back as September 1999.
From January 2001 neighbours and the foster carer at that time had expressed
concerns about her sexualised behaviour. Careful investigation of this aspect
by Dr Alice Swan had concluded inter alia:
"There is no conclusive evidence that she was sexually
abused within her own home or neighbourhood.
However there is a concern that she was sexually
abused within her home or neighbourhood. Some of
her sexualised behaviour is typical of a child who is
engaged in such behaviour as a comfort. Other
aspects of her behaviour are typical of a child who
has lived in an environment with poor boundaries."
Some of S's experience of the care system has served to compound the
difficulties she experienced in respect of her emotional and social
development.
[7] S's mother was an extremely volatile person and over recent months
has been admitted to Hydebank prison on a number of occasions. She has
exhibited limited involvement with the Trust in relation to S and does not
attend any of the looked after children reviews. She has informed the Trust
that she is not seeking any contact with S. She refused to meet the guardian
ad litem.
To continue reading
Request your trial