A judge in a regional town granted care orders to the age of 18 for two teenage boys, Child A and Child B. The mother consented to the application, but was not present in court. One child’s father was deceased and the other father was unknown.
The boys had initially come into the care of the Child and Family Agency (CFA) under a voluntary care arrangement. This was formalised by an interim care order in April 2024. The concerns for the welfare of the children related to the mother’s mental health issues, substance misuse and precarious housing. The CFA were unable to continue with a voluntary care arrangement because the mother could be difficult to locate.
Social work evidence
Initially, A had been placed with his maternal grandparents. This placement broke down in 2012 due to concerns regarding the mother’s mental health. She was volatile and the maternal grandparents were unable to continue to care for the child. The maternal aunt then began to care for A. When the second boy was born the maternal aunt cared for this child as well. The mother was accessing services but was in a volatile relationship and there were domestic violence concerns.
The mother did make an attempt to care for the boys, however, it was short-lived due to domestic violence and the boys then went to live with their maternal aunt and remained there until 2021. A daughter was also born and due to concerns regarding physical abuse she was placed with her brothers in this relative placement.
A tragic accident occurred which led to the sudden death of the daughter. There had been concerns regarding restrictive practices in the placement prior to the accident. Following this, the boys were moved to another maternal aunt and this was an excellent placement and she was an excellent advocate for the children.
Child A demonstrated challenging behaviours, and scaffolding and supports were needed in the placement, the social worker said. There had been significant therapeutic intervention. The social worker described A as a complex young man who engaged in sexualised behaviours. A referral was made to the National Interagency Prevention Programme (NIAPP) following disclosures by B but the behaviours continued. A safety plan was then put in place.
An assessment was carried out and A engaged in therapeutic work and it was concluded that he was at a low risk of reoffending. He had engaged in play therapy, and a private occupational therapist who specialised in trauma had been identified for him.
B was doing very well in his placement and in school. He had experienced less trauma in his early life than A. A was in a mainstream school but had been moved an autism class. He had struggled with attendance at times, but the school had developed incentives for him to attend and this improved his attendance.
The CFA hoped to organise respite for the boys, together and separately.
The mother had engaged with the social work team and attended access. In recent times she had found more stable accommodation but she still struggled with her mental health and frequently relapsed into addiction.
GAL evidence
The guardian ad litem confirmed that A’s placement was very good, but was not without its challenges, and therefore respite was needed to maintain the placement. B was doing really well and there were no issues. A had had a National Educational Psychological Service (NEPS) assessment and access to a special class. There was regression in relation to attendance but parties had come together and it had improved. The guardian confirmed that at this time appropriate supports were in place.
The judge granted care orders for both boys until the age of majority.