A District Court judge in a regional town granted care orders to 18 for two girls of primary school age, Child A and Child B, with the consent of the parents. The mother was present in court and legally represented and consented to the orders. A’s father attended in person and was legally represented and also consented to the application. B’s father was not legally represented but he appeared online and consented to the application.
The nature of the concerns related to the mother’s mental health difficulties. She had spent time in treatment and had varying level of engagement with services, however, she always engaged well with social workers and her children.
A’s social work evidence
A had come into the care of the Child and Family Agency (CFA) because of her mother’s mental health issues. She initially was placed under a voluntary care arrangement with her maternal grandfather and was then placed with her current foster carer at the suggestion of the mother. The mother had herself lived with the foster carer with A. The mother was supportive of this placement and hoped that it has all the supports it needs.
The mother had access every two weeks for 90 minutes and during holidays access was for a longer period of time. A parenting capacity assessment (PCA) had been carried out in the past and it was not supportive of reunification. The therapies that had been recommended for the mother in the PCA had not come to fruition. The mother was willing to review the PCA and the CFA agreed to fund therapies that might be recommended. This update and the mother’s proactive engagement was welcomed by the social worker.
A’s father had come into the case recently. The social work department said they did not know who A’s father was until recently, the father denied this. He was seeking to develop a relationship with A. He was having meetings every six weeks with the social workers and his advocate to develop a life story piece for A. The girl was not yet ready to meet her father but the work would be completed when she was ready.
A was also engaged in play therapy and a couple had been identified for respite. The mother engaged in care planning for A. She had an NEPS assessment.
A’s guardian ad litem evidence
The GAL confirmed that the placement was suitable. A was told about what was happening in court. She wanted to remain where she was and have continued family contact. The mother always had a good relationship with A. There was a period where she had been struggling and contact was limited but phone contact had been maintained. For the last two years access has gone well and progressed.
The mother’s mental health problems were always explained to A and B in an age-appropriate way. A knew that her mother was working on her mental health with supports and needed that support.
A had a strong relationship with her therapist and some things could be difficult for her but therapies helped.
A was very clear in her view that she did not want to meet her father. She was 13 and needed control at that moment, but once the social worker and father have done her life story work she could engage at her own pace.
B’s social work evidence
B was placed with the same foster carer as A. She considered this placement as her home and wanted to stay. She considered her foster carer as a parental figure. She had access with her mother and A every two weeks for 90 minutes, and longer over school holidays.
B also had unsupervised access with her father and half-sister every six weeks. Her father organised this access directly with the foster carer. He had not looked for reunification. Similarly to A, a respite placement had been identified. She was due to begin play therapy the following month. The CFA committed to provide support for a psychologist and an occupational therapist.
B’s guardian ad litem evidence
The GAL confirmed that B was thriving in her placement. She had been there for six and a half years. Her mother was very connected to the placement. She maintained a close relationship with her father. She enjoyed her access with her parents and the GAL said it was a good blend.
B did not want any change and she wanted more autonomy at some point. She had a great relationship with her sister but there had been some violence and there had been a trip to A&E as a result. B needed a lot of therapeutic support and respite was needed as the foster carer was caring alone. Respite needed to be built into the placement.
The judge was satisfied that the order was proportionate and made a care order until 18 for both girls.