A judge in a provincial court set aside a date to carry out a review of the cases of over 30 young people, who were subject to care orders, but for whom there had been no allocated social worker for some considerable time. The judge went through the information she obtained in questionnaires on each case.
In some cases, a section 47 direction under the Child Care Act had previously been made that the matters should have been re-entered to court in the event of a social worker not being allocated for a period of six weeks. In other cases, no section 47 direction had been made in this regard. In most cases the lawyer for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) was unable to confirm when a social worker would be allocated. The judge went through the cases and made section 47 directions in all matters where these were not made previously. She appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) for all of the children. The judge pointed out the matters from each case for which she required immediate updates and listed the cases for mention on a date one month later.
In the first case the judge noted that the child, who was subject to a full care order, was unallocated to a social worker for 22 weeks despite there being a direction in place that the matter should have been re-entered if there was an unallocated social worker for six weeks. The judge went through the child’s details and noted that there was no GAL appointed to the child.
Having reviewed the child’s care plan, the judge had queries regarding the possibility of a section 43A application for enhanced rights being made by the foster carers. She also noted that although the child’s father was deceased, the child-in-care meeting minutes stated that the child saw his father once a year. The judge sought updates on these issues. She appointed a GAL to the child and listed the case for mention one month later.
Another case dealt with a child who was subject to a full care order, who had been unallocated to a social worker for four months. In this matter there was no section 47 direction in place requiring a re-entry if the child was unallocated to a social worker. There was no GAL appointed to the child. The judge asked if an application for enhanced rights by the foster carers had ever been made. She enquired if the paternity of the child was established and also what work had been done around the child’s life story. The judge appointed a GAL and listed the matter for mention for updates on the important issues one month later.
A third case dealt with two siblings, who were subject to care orders and who had been unallocated to a social worker for four months. Again, in this matter there was no section 47 direction made about re-entering the case and no GAL had been appointed. Important issues which needed to be updated urgently were sleep problems, potty training difficulties, assessment for autism spectrum disorder, psychological assessments, and life story work. The judge appointed a GAL to the children and listed the matter for mention for updates a month later.
Further cases dealt with children who had been unallocated to a social worker for more than five months. One child had suffered the loss of her mother and an update on the provision of grief-counselling was directed. Many cases needed updates to be obtained in relation to health issues like occupational therapy assessments, orthodontic reviews, ENT consultations, eye examinations, assessment for autism spectrum disorder and speech and language assessments. In all cases the judge appointed a GAL to the child. In cases where section 47 directions had not already been made, the judge directed that the cases be re-entered if unallocated to a social worker for six weeks.
The CFA lawyer was unable to confirm exactly when social workers could be appointed in some cases. The matters were listed for mention for updates a month later so that the court could keep an oversight of the matters.