A full care order was granted in respect of a 15-year-old boy with autism spectrum disorder whose mother had suffered a serious health crisis and whose father had died by suicide. The judge described the child as “an extraordinarily resilient young man” and made the order until he turned 18.
The Child and Family Agency (CFA) solicitor sought a full care order. The child’s father had died by suicide a number of years earlier. The child had come into care after his mother suffered a serious health crisis and was admitted to hospital. He had autism spectrum disorder and was described as doing extremely well in foster care and in school. He remained in the same school he had attended before coming into care.
The CFA said every possible effort had been made to engage with and facilitate the mother. She had said the day before the hearing that she wanted to think about the application, but her phone had been turned off on the day. The application proceeded unopposed and uncontested. The CFA said the mother was vulnerable and recovering from a serious health event. If the order was made, the guardian ad litem (GAL) would remain involved for a period and then be reappointed in advance of the review the following year.
The mother’s lawyer described the case as very difficult. He said: “I do not have direct instructions.” He explained that the mother had been under the care of psychiatry and neurology and that after being stepped down to a lower level of care she had not managed well and had returned to hospital. He was concerned about her capacity to give instructions. He said he had taken instructions with the assistance of a mental health social worker, which had led to a position of neither opposing nor consenting.
He told the court the mother appeared to understand why her son was in care and knew she was unwell. However, he said he was in an ethical quandary: she had expressed confusion and a wish to have the child home, but he was unsure whether she had capacity to give instructions. He said the HSE had been closely involved in the mother’s care and, in his view, should take steps to address her capacity and vindicate her rights. He acknowledged that the question before the court was the child’s best interests, but said the mother could not face the reality of the situation.
The GAL’s lawyer noted the difficult situation but said the mother had a presumption of capacity. Previous findings had proceeded on the basis that the presumption applied, and the court had to operate in that context.
The social worker gave evidence about the conditions in the home when she first attended. The house was very cold, there were items and wrappers on the floor, and a mattress was on the floor. The mother had just returned home and later went back into hospital after a follow-up health event. The social worker said she did not feel the mother could understand what was going on. The child spent time in his aunt’s house the following week, and an emergency care order was then sought.
The social worker said concerns had been raised with the mother over time, including educational neglect, home neglect, and physical and emotional abuse. The mother accepted some matters but made excuses about others. She said the child did not want to attend school, but did not seem to grasp that it was her responsibility to intervene. She could not provide answers about how the concerns would be resolved.
A social care worker also gave evidence. She said engagement with the mother was limited and that the mother had blocked her phone number. A list of tasks and expectations had been developed for the mother, with a plan to support her in achieving them. The social care worker said the mother undoubtedly adored the child, but did not currently have the capacity to care for him. Some small progress had been made, but there remained significant concerns about the home and the mother’s understanding of why the child was in care.
The social care worker said the child was doing extremely well. He was high-functioning, was described by school as a “perfect student” and a “joy to be around”, had perfect attendance, and had just completed his mock Junior Cycle exams. Teachers wanted him to take higher level subjects. He wanted to go to college. He looked healthier, had a better diet, played basketball and GAA, and got on well with his peers and other foster children. His mental health had improved, though he had questions about the proceedings and what the future would look like. The judge was satisfied that the threshold for a care order had been met. She praised the work done by the mother’s representative and said she wished to convey “the best wishes of the court” to the child. She made the care order until the child turned 18 and listed the matter for review in approximately one year, including an aftercare review.