A Care Order was granted on consent for six weeks in a case where a social worker said that there were serious concerns about the mother’s ability to parent her child. The social worker said that the boy needed structures and boundaries but the mother had been struggling with these. The mother had been offered services but had not taken these up, according to the social worker.
The same social worker said that the father had undergone a DNA test and had completely disengaged from the social services offered to him. The social worker’s conclusion was that the father was not in a position to care for the boy at the moment but “if he comes forward in the future we will see if he is able to parent.” When the mother’s solicitor asked if there was a parenting assessment before the court, the social worker said that the court report she had completed was the parenting assessment.
In another case a Supervision Order application by the CFA was struck out and an agreement was reached between the parents and the CFA. The barrister for the parents (a senior counsel) disputed the allegation that the parents had been non-cooperative with the CFA, saying “it is not the case that these parents have not engaged fully”. The barrister said that judicial review proceedings had issued in respect of the case.
The barrister for the parents said that ex parte leave had been granted to seek judicial review of an aspect of the case so far (the particular aspect that the parents were seeking to review was not clear). The same barrister said that leave to seek judicial review had been granted “due to the failures in the child protection conference”.
The barrister for the parents initially sought an adjournment due to the fact that a 300-page document had been handed to the parents’ legal team just before the parties entered court. The adjournment was not necessary as the parties later reached an agreement. Both the CFA solicitor and the barrister for the parents sought the costs of the application.
The judge, on being told that there was agreement between the parties, struck out the application for a Supervision Order and made no order as to costs.
