A judge in a provincial court made care orders for two years for three siblings of primary school age, children A, B, and C, who had suffered unintentional neglect. An application had been made by the Child and Family Agency (CFA) for full care orders but the judge decided that a two-year order was “possibly proportionate”. The judge discharged a supervision order for the youngest of the family, Child D, who was living at home with the parents.
Applying for the long-term care order for the three older siblings, the CFA lawyer said that the parents were consenting to an order but only for a duration of two years. Both parents were present in court and were represented separately. The guardian ad litem (GAL) was represented by her lawyer. The CFA lawyer explained that the parents were clear about what needed to be done by them over the two-year period. He believed that this was a realistic period of time to allow these improvements to be made.
The CFA lawyer told the court that a supervision order had previously been made in relation to the couple’s youngest child, D. He said that D’s parents were working well with the social work department and always cooperated in allowing access to the social worker. A further supervision order was not necessary for D at present. He said the parents had plans to move accommodation and this accommodation would need to be monitored and assessed.
The mother’s lawyer said that a full care order for the three siblings was disproportionate. She said it was fully accepted that there were matters the parents needed to work on. The new accommodation would lay the foundation for the family to be assessed in a different way. She said the parents were working well with the CFA and that they were consenting to a two-year order.
The father’s lawyer said that he was consenting to a two-year care order for the three children. The father also believed that a full care order to 18 was disproportionate. The father’s lawyer stressed that he was working and cooperating with the social work department and that he knew how important it was for him to continue this cooperation.
The GAL’s lawyer told the judge that the GAL believed that a two-year care order was appropriate to enable the parents to do the necessary work.
The CFA lawyer asked the social worker to outline the work that the parents needed to do. The social worker replied that the mother needed to engage in counselling and psychotherapy. She added that both parents needed to re-engage with the parenting programmes. The mother needed to engage with the adult mental health services, especially in relation to post-natal depression. She confirmed that the social work department considered a review would be needed of the parental capacity assessment in light of future plans for reunification of the family. A review of D’s safety plan in her parents’ care would also be necessary at a later stage.
The social worker stressed that this was not a case of wilful neglect. Child A was doing very well in foster care, thriving in school and had made a number of friends. An application had been made for her to have an educational assessment by the national education psychological service in order to establish her level of need. A similar referral was planned for B, who had behavioural difficulties in school and had been referred to the primary care therapeutic team. The social worker said that C had developmental complications with undeveloped speech and language. He had been referred to the children’s disability network team. The CFA lawyer asked her if the threshold had been reached in relation to the application for the care orders and the social worker replied that she was satisfied that a two-year order was proportionate.
The parents’ lawyers asked some questions of the social worker in order to clarify proposed dates for assessments for the children. The mother’s lawyer said that her client was very anxious to receive appropriate supports. She advised the court that the mother was willing to work with the social work department. The parents told the judge they had no questions for the witnesses.
The judge said she had read all the reports prior to hearing the case. She said she was satisfied that the concerns in relation to the three children were as a result of “unintentional harmful care and neglect of the children”. She said that the needs of the three children were being addressed and further assessments were due to take place. The judge took into account the need for the children to have a meaningful relationship with their parents. She said the views of the children were well noted in the GAL’s report.
The judge decided that the threshold for the care orders had been met and that it was likely that the children would be neglected if the care orders were not granted. She stated that the two-year orders were “possibly proportionate” but she needed every opportunity to see if the parents would be able to address the concerns. The judge acknowledged that both parents had engaged well with the social work department. She stressed that an up-to-date parental capacity assessment would need to be done in the future prior to any family reunification proposals. The judge listed the case to be reviewed on a date six months later. She also discharged the supervision order for D.