The court in a provincial city granted the application to extend a youth’s care order for one month with the consent of his mother.
The application by the Child and Family Agency for a one-month extension had replaced a full care order application that had been brought by the CFA the previous week and that was being contested by the youth’s mother. On that occasion, the judge had ruled that a full care order was not proportionate and that the support of the youth’s guardian ad litem (GAL) for the full care order had been equivocal. The GAL’s solicitor disputed this. At the time, the judge had asked if a supervision order would be sufficient.
The youth at the centre of the application was in his late teens, suffered from an intellectual disability and was in residential care at the time of the application. He went home to his family on occasion at weekends.
The CFA’s solicitor told the court that circumstances had changed in the week since the previous hearing. The mother had been admitted to hospital over the weekend, and the youth, who had been returned to the family home, had had to be collected by a staff member of the residential unit. As a result, the CFA was making a new application to extend the existing care order, due to expire that night, for one month. This application replaced its full care order application from the previous week and was being made with the consent of the mother. The one-month extension was being requested in order to afford time to both the CFA and the youth’s mother to prepare for a full care order application thereafter.
The CFA’s solicitor told the court that the youth had been in contact with his guardian ad litem (GAL) and had given him a letter (email). The contents of the letter, which was handed to the judge, indicated that the youth was no longer adamantly seeking to return home as he had previously indicated.
The GAL told the judge that the youth had been in contact with him late the previous week. The GAL had explained to the youth that his care order was expiring and that a supervision order might be applied for by the CFA. The GAL said that the youth sent him an email in which he said that he had been coaxed to say that he wanted to return home.
The youth said in his email that home life had not been what he had expected or wanted. His brother had not known when he was hungry. The GAL said that the youth had been overwhelmed and anxious. The youth claimed that he had been told to say the views that he had expressed to the court the previous week.
The GAL said that when he had been returned home on the Thursday by a staff member of the residential unit, he had been greeted by his brothers and mother. The staff member had left. Approximately 15 minutes later, his mother had had to be taken to hospital. The youth had been left in the care of his older brother for the remainder of that day and the following day. On the Saturday, a staff member from the residential unity had had to come and collect the youth. He had checked with the CFA to inform them of the situation and get approval to allow the youth stay in the residential unit.
The youth had spoken to the GAL. He had been concerned that it would be too late for him to remain at the residential unit. He had been worried that he would not still be able to go on a planned holiday. He had asked about his disability allowance. The GAL said that he normally never asked about this. He had been extremely out of his routine, knocking on doors, looking for hugs. He was extremely dysregulated and upset. He was worried that he would lose everything and that his experience at home would become his new reality.
The youth was worried that his mother would not be able to look after him without his disability allowance. The GAL said that he was throwing himself in to the adult world, which was a sign of worry and of general confusion.
The youth was due to on holidays elsewhere in Ireland that day of the hearing. He had been uncertain if he was still going and what was going to happen to all of his stuff. He had also been worried about his mother and the fact that she had self-discharged from hospital against advice.
The GAL said that, in his professional opinion, the youth’s mental and general health would be in jeopardy given the uncertainty he had recently experienced and the health of his mother if he did not remain in the care of the CFA.
The counsel representing the youth’s mother told the court that while the mother had been looking to vacate the care order at the court hearing the previous week, she was consenting to the one-month extension on this occasion to allow everyone take stock.
Counsel asked the GAL what he thought had caused the youth’s dysregulation. Had it been the fact that the news about the move home had been delivered by his brother suddenly that had thrown him in to a panic? “Was it explained to him that it would be phased?” The GAL replied that no, it had been the reality of what had happened rather than the news itself. It had dawned on the youth that this would be his new routine and the new level of care that he would be receiving at home. The GAL said the views and the language that the youth had used to express the views that he had given at the previous week’s hearing had not been language that the youth had used with the GAL previously.
The GAL had typed the letter that had been handed into the judge on behalf of the youth. He said that he had had a Facetime call with the youth. It had been the youth’s words. The GAL had given him some guidance but the youth had taken it from there. The GAL did not think that the youth would change his mind again. “He was really shook … I haven’t seen this before.” The youth was going to the adults to ask them to sort the situation out. “He’s in a hole and wants the adults to fix it for him.”
Counsel observed that the turn of events was completely contrary to the views that the youth had previously expressed. The GAL replied that reality had dawned on the youth and that it had completely upset him. He said that the youth was going on a four-day holiday to that was starting that day and that he was joining his family for the holiday.
The father’s solicitor told the court that the father was consenting to the temporary care order.
The judge asked counsel for the mother why the mother was not present in court that day. Counsel replied that the mother had only become aware of this hearing that morning and that she had previously been excused from attending by the judge. She also said that it had been an asthma attack that the mother had suffered the previous week and not a lung infection.
The judge replied that the mother had chosen not to attend that morning’s hearing. Counsel replied that she had taken instructions over the telephone that morning and that the youth’s mother was consenting to the one month’s extension application by the CFA.
The social work team leader gave her evidence to the court and confirmed that she had a good knowledge of the case. She said that the plan had always been that the youth would go to his family home on the previous Thursday in advance of going on the planned family holiday to the east coast that day. The CFA had paid €180 towards cost of the youth going on the holiday. The youth’s mother had contacted the Social Work Department about the payment on the Thursday. The youth’s email had come into the Social Work Department on the Friday. There had been no mention of the mother’s hospitalisation at that time. The youth had told them that his brother had called the CFA, but she said that they had no record of having been contacted by the brother.
Counsel for the mother said that the youth’s transition to living at home should be done on a phased basis and that what had happened the previous week had been too fast for him.
The team leader said that their concern was that they had not been contacted. The youth had been brought back by the staff of the residential unit. The mother could have contacted the Social Work Department. Counsel said that the mother had confirmed that she had had an asthma attack, but the social worker replied that she had not seen any medical report.
Counsel confirmed that the mother was consenting to the one-month extension of the youth’s care order in order to “get to the bottom of things”. It had been a very stressful situation for everyone.
The judge said that he had heard the new application of the CFA to extend the youth’s care order by one month with the consent of the parents. The application replaced the CFA’s application of the previous week which had been for a care order to majority, but the judge accepted that circumstances had changed in the meantime.
He granted the care order for one month on the day that the current order was expiring. He put the matter in to hear the full care order application in one month’s time.