A District Court in a provincial city granted a six-month care order for a toddler who was in relative foster care to give the mother time to address her substance abuse. She was not present, but consented to the order through her Legal Aid Board solicitor.
The social worker said that the mother’s mental health and substance abuse issues remained a concern. The mother had accepted that she had difficulties with substance abuse and she had been looking to get treatment for this, but did not yet have a date for that treatment.
The little boy had been moved into the relative foster placement with his grandaunt and her daughter. They were sharing the care of the little boy.
The social worker said that the care order was being sought to allow the mother enter a residential facility for treatment of her substance abuse. Unfortunately, neither the CFA nor the court could do anything to expedite getting the mother a place in the residential facility. It was up to the mother to push the facility for a place.
The social worker said that the mother had supervised access to her son for two hours every week. The social worker was looking into giving the mother more access if possible. The mother understood that the little boy would remain with his grandaunt and daughter while she engaged in treatment of her substance abuse.
The judge granted a care order for six months. She gave the CFA discretion to increase access between the child and the mother if necessary. She said that a review of the care order was not required and that a further care order application could be made in respect of the child on the expiry of this order if needed.
Earlier, the court had granted an interim care order, which followed the granting of an emergency care order due to serious concerns about the mother’s abuse of drugs and alcohol and her mental health. The child was initially placed in general foster care. At this hearing the social worker said that the mother had acknowledged her recent relapse and had expressed a commitment to engaging with local addiction services. The court was told that she had a very supportive family network.
The social worker said that since the emergency care order was granted the mother had begun engaging with support services and had indicated a willingness to enter into a residential treatment unit. The mother had expressed a strong desire to maintain access to her child and appeared to be taking the situation seriously.
The mother was accompanied in court by her cousin at the interim care order hearing. The court was informed that the mother’s cousin and aunt were being considered as potential relative foster carers for the child. An assessment of this relative placement was underway, and the CFA’s preliminary view was that it appeared to be a suitable option. The social worker stated that it might be possible to complete the assessment within the 28-day period of the ICO, although it was still in the early stages.
When the case came back for the care order application, the court heard that the grand-aunt and cousin were approved as foster carers for the little boy.