Judge orders assessment of risks of reuniting two children with parents

A High Court judge has directed the Child and Family Agency carry out a "particularised" assessment of the risks of reuniting two young children with their parents, amid allegations of child sexual abuse.

The children will remain for the time being in foster care, after their parents undertook before Ms Justice Marie Baker to consent to a voluntary care arrangement under which care orders could be made under the Child Care Act until February 1st next or pending further order. The parents also undertook not to themselves seek to withdraw from the voluntary orders.

While lawyers for the parents and Child and Family Agency (CFA) argued there have already been “multiple” risk assessments, there was a “disconnect” between the “very general assessment of risk in this case and what then happened”, the judge said.

Issues remained to be addressed concerning how their rights were to be protected both within the family context and as individuals.

The judge earlier heard the parents strongly deny the abuse allegations, made against them by their two older children who remain in care. Those children initially alleged they were sexually abused by an uncle and later alleged their parents had also engaged in abusing them and the younger children.

There are issues over the extent to which the abuse allegations against the parents have been withdrawn, or partially withdrawn, by the older children, the court was told. It also heard three of the four children want to return to their parents, while one of the youngest has a “different” view.

The court was also told by lawyers for the parents the couple, from a disadvantaged social background, had had “enormous” difficulties in 2011 but have shown “enormous character” in tackling those and had become and remain “clean”.

The DPP, following a review, has reiterated her previous decision not to bring any prosecution against them, but “serious charges” have been brought against the uncle.

The judge had been asked by the two youngest children’s foster carers to decide whether the High Court had jurisdiction to make them wards of court pending a full risk assessment.

The wardship proceedings were initiated last month after the CFA in July withdrew its application for full care orders for the two youngest children after a 28-day District Court hearing. The foster parents said they had been told by social workers the CFA regarded the case as “too toxic and costly” and was concerned no conclusive outcome would be reached.

The children remained with the foster parents on foot of an interim High Court order pending that court’s decision.

The judge stressed yesterday she had not reached a decision whether the High Court’s wardship jurisdiction permits it engage with regard to questions of the welfare of children when there is a well established jurisdiction under the 1991 Child Care Act.

The foster parents and the children’s court appointed guardian had “at least raised an argument” the High Court has a jurisdiction under its wardship jurisdiction to take children into care, she said.

Because of the parents’ undertaking, she would not engage the full jurisdiction of the High Court under its wardship jurisdiction, as there was already a “specialist forum” to address the welfare of children. That meant the CFA was back into the situation as a body charged under the 1991 Act with dealing with proceedings regarding these children and there must be “full engagement” with the risk issues.

The judge also stressed the guardian and foster carers may still bring applications under the 1991 Act pending decisions by the District Court on the issues raised.