A district court judge in a rural town was told that the Child and Family Agency (CFA) would seek to extend a care order for a child until age eighteen.
The CFA lawyer told the court that the child was seven years of age. The child had previously made sexual abuse allegations against his father. The CFA had made no determination on those allegations and the court was told that it was no longer possible for the CFA to make findings on child sexual abuse allegations, under CFA policy. Since the allegations surfaced, the father had disengaged, and the child had stopped talking about it.
The court was told that the child’s mother lived in relatively close proximity to the child, however, she had not had contact with him in three to four years.
The child had received significant support services. The Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) had recently reviewed the child, who required medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The foster carers had paid for a private assessment for him but did not consider the prescription of ADHD medication to be necessary.
The judge said the foster carers did not have enhanced rights and had no entitlement to object to medication. He said they might have concerns about some medications rather than medication generally. He said they may feel the child can self-regulate. He said this was a misinformed view, as with a diagnosis of ADHD, the child had a lot going on. It was not just about regulation for the child but also about focus and distraction.
The CFA lawyer said the child had not met the criteria for an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis. The child had some physical issues, which might require surgery if they did not improve. The guardian ad litem’s report recommended a private occupational therapy assessment, as the child needed considerable occupational therapy and physiotherapy for physical problem.
The CFA lawyer told the court that the child’s foster placement was secure, and this was the foster carers’ first foster child. The child was very attached to the foster mother. The foster parents had initially found the child’s attachment and behaviour difficult, and had requested respite, but they no longer sought this. The judge set a hearing date for the full care order. He said that recent changes in the law meant the current order did not need to expire before granting a further one, within reason.