Re T and E (Freeing Order)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Gillen J |
| Judgment Date | 24 October 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] NIFam 13 |
| Court | Family Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 24 October 2006 |
| Year | 2006 |
Neutral Citation no. [2006] NIFam 13 Ref:
GILC5671
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
24/10/06
(subject to editorial corrections)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
FAMILY DIVISION
________
RE: T and E (FREEING ORDER)
________
GILLEN J
[1] This judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in
any report no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing
them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be
identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the
children and adult members of the family must be strictly preserved.
[2] This is an application by a Community Health and Social Services
Trust which I do not propose to identify (“the Trust”) in respect of two
children whom I shall identify as T who is now 6 years of age and E who is
now 5 years of age. The Trust applies for an order pursuant to Article 18 of
the 1987 Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order (“the 1987 Order”) freeing both
children for adoption in the absence of parental consent. The application is
opposed by the mother of the child whom I shall identify as N. The father of
the child, who does not have parental responsibility, has chosen not to
become involved in these proceedings notwithstanding that he has been
informed of them by the social workers who were engaged in this case. He
has failed to attend any Looked After Children Reviews and has not attended
this hearing.
Background
[3] The historical background to this application was not seriously in
dispute in any material manner. I consider that the relevant background
material is as follows:
(1) From in or about 1996 onwards significant concerns had emerged
regarding N’s ability to care for her children. T and E have four older siblings
namely S a boy who is currently 13 years old, S1 a girl who is currently 11
years, B a girl who is currently 8 years and S2 a girl who is currently 7 years.
2
Major areas of concern centred around issues of hygiene within the home and
the consequent impact of this on the children, lack of structure and routine in
family life, neglect of the children and exposure to a dysfunctional
relationship between their parents which was characterised by domestic
violence and alcohol abuse by the father.
(2) Subsequent Trust intervention with the family failed to result in
positive and sustained change necessitating the children being transferred to
and remaining in alternative care placements. The four older siblings are
subjects of care orders in favour of this Trust and all but B and S2 have been
placed in separate foster placements.
(3) Consequently T and E have been in the care of this Trust since 21
September 2000. Although the placement was made initially on a voluntary
basis, care orders were subsequently granted in respect of both children on 20
February 2004. T has resided with the same foster carers since the 30 October
2000 when he was five months old except for a return home between 21 April
2001 to 21 September 2001. These carers are committed to offering him a
stable home and also to adopting him. E has also remained with the same
carers since 27 September 2001 and these carers are equally committed to
adopting E within their family. It was not possible to find a joint home for the
two children. They have had monthly contact with their parents and siblings
together with an additional siblings only monthly contact.
(4) It must at this stage be highlighted that during the previous care
proceedings Dr Mangan, Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist had
assessed issues of attachment and contact in relation to both children and
their respective foster carers. Dr Mangan had concluded that both T and E
demonstrated secure attachments to their carers although at times of distress
E also approached non significant others. A chief component in the condition
of these children was that prior to removal from their home they had been
placed in respite care for periods of time and had witnessed several incidents
of severe domestic violence between N and the father G.
(5) Mr Quinn, Consultant Psychologist, had prepared a report dated 7
November 2002 for the earlier proceedings. Of particular significance were
the findings that N had been subjected to a highly dysfunctional family life
herself and this had had a deleterious effect on her development and later life
function. Mr Quinn described her as having developed a personality disorder
characterised by masochistic/self-defeating, avoidance and depressive
features. One consequence of these difficulties was a tendency towards
repeated involvement in destructive relationships with similarly damaged or
problematic partners and limited ability to extricate herself from these
situations. It was Mr Quinn’s view that N’s relationship with G typified such
a pattern. Not only did repeat involvement in such relationships perpetuate
her problems but also placed her children at high risk of experiencing
To continue reading
Request your trial