A judge in a rural town made a six-month care order for a teenage boy (Child A). Both parents were present in court and were represented by separate solicitors. The father consented to the making of the care order for six months, but the mother did not. The lawyer for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) said that a supervision order was in place following an emergency care order which had been granted the previous month. The lawyer for the CFA said that they were also looking for a guardian ad litem (GAL) to be appointed.
Evidence of the Social Worker
The social worker said that the CFA initially became aware of A’s situation through a referral from his school. The boy’s attendance had been very sporadic for the first two years of secondary school, and although it had improved somewhat, he was presenting at school in a state of constant hunger, suffering from headaches and fainting episodes.
The social worker said that the boy’s father lived in his own house near to the mother and they had never had any meaningful relationship with each other. She reported that the relationship between the mother and father was very acrimonious, and the father had also contacted the social work team in relation to his concerns for A. The social worker said that the mother led a very insular life, and she had indoctrinated the child not to salute or engage with his father unless she had permitted it.
The social worker said that the social work team had sought to meet with the mother on two occasions and she would not let them into her house. The mother then brought A to a meeting in the social worker’s office. The social worker said that during this meeting the mother would not allow A to speak and she ended the meeting very abruptly. The child was very upset leaving the social worker’s office.
The CFA obtained a supervision order following this meeting. When the social work team met A in his school in November he described his home life in detail. He said there was no food at home, and he was always very hungry. He said he went straight to his room every day after school and he was very lonely and isolated. He wanted to see his father but he was afraid to tell his mother this as he wanted to comply with her. A number of A’s half-siblings also lived in the house and he had no real relationship with them apart from with his brother (Child B) who was in his early 20s.
The social worker reported that Child A had told the social workers that he loved B and wanted to see him but he did not wish to see his mother at the moment. Child B had spoken to the social work team and had been helpful in providing details about what home life was like for A.
When the social worker was giving evidence the mother interjected serval times. She said A loved her and she loved him and he should be at home with her.
The social worker said that A was a very pleasant child who was very respectful of his mother and while he did not wish to upset her, he did not want to return home at the moment.
The social worker reported that A had said the only food available at home was cereal and that he never had home cooked meals when he was at home. There were no cupboards and no chairs or furniture in the house, and the oven did not work. The social worker said that A shared a small room with his mother and two older sisters and often shared a single bed with his mother.
The social worker gave evidence that A had settled into his foster care placement extremely well. He was sleeping better, wearing warmer cloths and his diet had greatly improved. She said he was a very open, almost otherworldly, child and while he was still underweight, he had really improved physically since he had left his mother’s house. He had shown great resilience, and the school were very supportive of him and he was doing his best in school. She said he was a very compliant child, and he did not want to upset his mother, but he had made it clear that he did not want to continue living with her as he was fearful about the dynamic between them at present.
The judge asked if sibling access was taking place. The social worker said that A had asked to see his older brother but not his sisters. Child A was very attached to his older brother and was anxious that they remained in regular contact.
The social worker gave evidence that a six-month care order was necessary in order for the social work team to try and establish a relationship with the mother, and to allow for the child to access other services which may be required following completion of his medical examination. She said the social work team wanted to see the condition of the mother’s house, but she was not cooperating with them, and she did not even consent to the child getting his hair cut.
Judge: “Do you think that this could be achieved in a shorter time frame?”
Social worker: “No, as we have been working on this case for some time and we have made very little progress so far. The mother would not give any information as to his GP history so anything we’ve learned about Child A has come from A himself.”
The social worker said that the father had engaged well and they may consider a family member of his as a potential foster carer but a relative assessment would have to be carried out.
Solicitor for the mother: “Was there previously any social work involvement in respect of the other four (now adult) children?”
Social worker: “No, only in respect of domestic violence allegations made by the mother against her first husband. The older ones were fed and clean, and Child B had said that things got better as they got older, but when Child A came along the mother become much more tired and insular”.
Mother’s evidence
The child’s mother said that she had worked very long hours and very hard for a low income. She said she had been feeding Child A, but food was very expensive and she wasn’t getting any maintenance from his father to help financially.
Solicitor for the mother: “Where is all the furniture from the house and why are the appliances not working?”
Mother: “I paid for everything in the house when I moved in first. It’s very old now so I removed it. I don’t want new furniture because I don’t want to stay there, I want to move out.”
The mother said she wanted to Child A to return home to live with her, and she was in shock that he was no longer at home. She said she knew how best to look after her child and she did not need to be told how to do this by the social workers.
The judge asked her if she was working at the moment. She said she was not, and she had a lot of debt.
The judge said he was satisfied that the threshold had been met as the child’s health, welfare and development had been neglected and he made the care order for six months. The judge appointed a GAL and he directed that parent and sibling access would be at the discretion of the CFA.
He listed the matter for review in two months’ time to hear from the newly appointed GAL, and to see if progress could be made in relation to the mother engaging with the social work team. He also said that the CFA should investigate whether the assistance of an appropriate advocate would be helpful for the mother in terms of her dealing with the CFA and the court.