The judge extended an existing care order to majority (just over a year) for a youth who had been the subject of prolonged exposure to domestic violence, neglect and physical harm while in the care of his mother and her husband.
The initial care order had been granted the previous year and had followed the granting of a section 12 (emergency) order and a number of subsequent interim care orders. The youth’s mother was present in court but was not legally represented.
The guardian ad litem (GAL) was supportive of the application to extend being made by the Child and Family Agency (CFA).
The social worker told the court that the youth had had multiple placements, including family placements, since coming into care. The placements had broken down due to conflict or the foster carers’ inability to meet the youth’s needs. He had been offered an opportunity to restore his relationship with his grandparents, but this too had become too much for the grandparents and the youth.
The social worker said that he currently had a place in a residential unit in a local town and he was engaging there very well. The youth’s parents had demonstrated limited capacity to care for him. The youth was emotionally distant from them both.
The social worker said that both parents wanted to engage with the youth. However, he did not want to have anything to do with either parent. Following the first access visit, he had not wanted any further contact.
The youth had suffered serious abuse by the mother’s husband including having had a knife held to his throat. There had not been enough food in the house. He had not seen his mother for about a year and a half nor his father since sometime during the past year.
The youth was currently a TY student and had got on well in his Junior Certificate. He travelled quite a distance to get to his school from his current placement which he gave out about, but he was otherwise happy in the residential unit. He had built up a rapport with the staff there. Sometimes he could be upset or angry, but generally his biggest gripe was the logistics for school.
She said that the school was very hands on with the youth and were very strong advocates on his behalf. The school tried to accommodate his soccer training. He had a very good relationship with the school staff. The youth was very excited about an upcoming school trip abroad taking place the following week. The social worker had arranged that the youth could go on this school trip.
The youth had consistently engaged with a therapist and had had very good sessions with her. He had reached a point now where he did not want to become dependent on the therapist.
The youth himself was concerned that the longer-term order would mean that he would never be able to move back to his home locale where his school was located. The social worker had tried to explain to him the challenges with finding suitable placements in specific locations and that the current placement was meeting all of his needs. The social worker said that this was the reason why the youth was not supportive of the longer term order.
She said that an aftercare worker had been appointed for the youth and that she had started to look at his assessment of needs for his aftercare. She said that he was “very up and down” regarding what he wanted, on occasion he indicated that a short term care order might allow for reunification with his mother, but then on the next occasion, he did not want to talk to or meet with her.
The social worker told the court that the boy’s mother loved him very much. She really wanted to see her son and understood that his home life had been very difficult. The social worker said that she was happy to pass on the mother’s messages to the youth to show that she was consistently thinking of him.
The youth was interested in doing a particular course. There had been some difficulties in organising this for him as the course provider in question had required payment via Revolut and this could not be done by the CFA who required the provider to be set up as a vendor. The social worker said that it would not be an issue but that all needed to be above board. The youth had understood that it needed a bit of time to get the funding organised. She was very supportive of the youth attending this particular course as he was really “into this”.
The youth had met with his aftercare worker. The aftercare supports were likely to include youth work and continued attendance with various medical and dental practitioners and an area-based therapy team. His psychotherapy sessions were due to end, but this would need to be handled very sensitively as the youth’s relationship with the current therapist was very strong. It might be necessary to have permission to share his psychotherapy files with another therapist in the future and it would be helpful to have a letter on file approving this should it be required.
The judge asked the youth’s mother, who was present in court, if she wished to say anything. She told the judge that she had been through a very difficult time. She had had to stay in a women’s refuge for a number of months. It had been a very difficult two years.
She had gone back to work and she wanted to work with the social work department. She wanted to rebuild her life. She said that she was worried that the extension of the care order to majority would block any chance of her having a relationship with her son. She also had a primary school aged son. The youth and his mother had always been close. She had separated from her husband and had not known about the youth’s difficulties with her husband until it had all blown up. She wanted her son to see that she was settled now.
The judge told the mother that the fact that she was here in court was very important in terms of how her relationship with her son would develop in time. “It is the first thing that [the son] would be told.” The second thing he would be told was how she felt about her son. “All you need is to be there, [your son] will come to you in due course, you just need to be patient.”
The mother told the judge that she was prepared to be patient, she just wanted him to know how she felt.
The judge was satisfied that it was necessary and proportionate to extend the care order for the youth to his majority and put the matter in for review later in the year.