A judge in a provincial court was extremely dissatisfied that there was nobody present in court from the Child and Family Agency (CFA) to give evidence about the case of a troubled teenaged boy (A) with a history of criminality as his social worker had left his post and a replacement social worker had not been appointed. The judge said the boy was a serious risk to himself and others, having caused serious injury to another when he crashed a stolen car.
The boy, while the subject of a care order, was still living with his mother as there was no place available in any residential unit for him. The mother’s lawyer described the situation as “outrageous”. The judge adjourned the matter several times during the day to allow the CFA to come up with necessary planned supports. She reluctantly agreed to a temporary plan and listed the matter for review the following week.
Day One
When the case came before the court in the morning, the CFA lawyer informed the judge that, unfortunately, he had no evidence to put before the court as there was nobody available from the CFA to deal with the matter. The judge expressed extreme concern at this and stressed that she would not consider an adjournment of the case because of the seriousness of the situation. She had a written report available to her but there was nobody from the CFA to swear the evidence in the report.
The judge pointed to issues in the report which were extremely worrying. It reported that A had stolen a car, crashed it while having cannabis is his system, had been hospitalised and had said he had planned to kill himself. He was reported to be aggressive and had already been suspended from school. A blunt screwdriver had been found in his room. The judge said the young person was living at home with his mother and that there was no residential place available to him. The judge adjourned the case to the afternoon to allow for somebody from the CFA to be able to inform the court about what the social work department was doing for A, whom she described as being “at serious risk”.
The lawyer for the mother was most dissatisfied with the matter. She said that the CFA had sought and obtained a care order for this boy and that it was outrageous that despite review after review, there was nobody to tell the court what was being done for A.
Mother’s lawyer: “The fact that nobody is here from the social work department to deal with it is outrageous.”
The judge said that somebody needed to be in court from the CFA. It was clear that A wanted to stay at home with his mother but this posed a high risk. The lawyer for the guardian ad litem (GAL) stated that the GAL shared the court’s concerns. She pointed to the “national crisis” in residential placements and stressed that the significant risk necessitated the prioritisation of A’s needs. The judge said there were serious concerns that A was a risk, both to himself and to others.
The case was recalled in the middle of the afternoon. The CFA lawyer said he regretted to inform the court that the social worker, who had been assigned to A, had left his post; the replacement social worker was due to be appointed imminently and that the principal social worker was away on leave. The difficulties with the national placement service were systemic. Nobody from the social work department, which was managing the case on a daily basis, was available to attend.
Judge: “There is nobody here to put the report or to be cross-examined on it.”
The judge referred again to the written report, which described how A had driven off after the crash, leaving a person critically injured and how he had subsequently set the seatbelts on fire and was charged with arson. The GAL’s report said that A had embarked on a criminal career and was taking drugs. He wanted to stay at home with his mother but that this was not safe.
The mother’s lawyer said they were all aware of the importance of annual leave but that, given the urgency of this matter, the supports should have been in place for A that day. The GAL’s lawyer informed the judge that A was travelling overseas the following morning with his mother and that the contact details for police there had been supplied to her. The judge expressed alarm about the risk of A taking drugs in the foreign country. She directed that a report of a “complete wrap-around service” needed to be handed into court before the end of the day. The judge adjourned the case until all other cases for the day had been completed.
When the matter was called on for the third time, the CFA lawyer said that he had the “bones of a written plan” outlined and would file a perfected copy to court. The plan included: a service provider to work with the family and give feedback to A’s mother regarding any difficulties. The work was to include two five-hour sessions with A at the weekend; a meeting of all the professionals involved in A’s care, including the mother, the GAL, the junior liaison officer and the social care worker was to be scheduled for the following week; the CFA to follow through with any flights home to Ireland if this became necessary; and the junior liaison officer to engage with A in the planned interventions.
The judge reluctantly decided that this plan appeared to be suitable in the short term. She listed the case for review.
Day two
When the case came back before the court two weeks later, the principal social worker attended to give evidence as a social worker was due to be allocated to A the following week. She informed the court that there had been no incidents with A while he was abroad. He had now returned to school and apart from having a blade on his person once, there were no current issues. The professionals’ meeting had taken place as planned once each week and both A and his mother were involved in the planning process.
The social worker expressed doubts about the possibility of A getting a residential placement soon. In comparison to others on the waiting list, at least A had a bed in his mother’s house, many did not. Also, the social worker pointed out that the charge of arson against A would militate against his chance of a placement. There was no chance of finding him a private placement as he would almost certainly abscond from it. The social worker said the CFA was doing its best to scaffold the support for A’s mother. The mother was present in court and was represented by her lawyer.
The social worker said that the biggest difficulty in A’s life was that he was living in an area where “the culture of criminality was normalised” and he could not understand why people had worries about his behaviour. He liked to portray the image of being a “hard man” but in reality he was a lovely, funny boy who was great company. The mother was doing her best but financial support for her to assist with his care was necessary. The social worker told the judge that the professionals had stressed the extremely serious nature of the criminal behaviour, stealing a car, knocking someone and setting fire to the seatbelts in an attempt to hide the evidence.
The mother’s lawyer asked about the waiting list for the residential unit and was told A was third on the list. She asked what the alternative backup plan was if A did not get a place. The social worker said she was “struggling” as there was no alternative in the absence of a residential placement. There were no relatives available and a placement with foster carers was not an appropriate option.
Mother’s lawyer: “Is there something out there to give my client any respite?”
The mother’s lawyer asked when the awaited psychologist’s report would be available and the social worker assured her that the psychologist was aware of its urgency. The mother’s lawyer said there was no other place available for the boy and the alternative was homelessness. She asked about financial support for A’s mother and was told that grocery shop vouchers were given. A junior liaison officer had been appointed for A and a meeting had been scheduled for the end of the month. The mother’s lawyer asked about A’s passport and the judge said she would make an order that the CFA retain it for safe keeping.
The judge stated she was glad the overseas holiday had passed without incident. She was critical of the fact that A was using cannabis at such a young age. She asked the social worker how she could say that A was best placed in his mother’s home.
Principal social worker: “I am not saying it is risk-free but there is no alternative.”
The social worker said the CFA was not intending to either discharge the care order or seek a supervision order. When the judge asked about contact from A’s father, she was informed that there had been no contact. The GAL’s lawyer told the judge that the GAL believed this matter should be kept under close review.
The judge made a direction that the CFA retain A’s passport. She described the case as “very concerning”. There were factors militating against the possibility of finding A his residential placement but she said that there did not seem to be any alternative placement. The report from the psychologist’s assessment would be critical in this matter. The criminality coupled with cannabis use at a very young age meant A had put himself at huge risk.
The judge thanked the principal social worker for doing her best. She listed the matter for review again in two weeks, stressing that she would review the case every fortnight until the psychologist’s recommendations were available.