A District Court judge in a regional town granted care orders until 18 for two boys, one pre-teen, the other a teenager. The mother consented to the application, she acknowledged that it was in the best interests of the boys.
The boys had been in care with their maternal aunt since 2024. There were a number of ongoing concerns including alcoholism and domestic violence. The older boy, A, was due to have an assessment for Foetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) which would have an educational component. There was a proposal for increased access however, that had not been discussed with the boys yet.
Social Work Evidence
The boys had come into the care of the Child and Family Agency (CFA) under an interim care order in 2024. The family had a long history with social workers. Prior to their placement with their aunt, the boys had lived with another aunt and the maternal grandparents.
The welfare concerns related to drug and alcohol use, lack of food, physical abuse and lack of supervision. The mother did acknowledge some of these issues, but denied or minimised others. The mother had entered rehabilitation treatment two years earlier. This was a short stay and she entered again nine months before the hearing and had remained sober.
The social worker acknowledged that this should be admired. The mother also informed the social worker that she was attending support groups. The current concern related to the mother’s relationship with a man where there were concerns of domestic abuse, physical abuse and substance abuse. The boys had asked her to leave this relationship but she was engaged and there was no indication that there would be a change in the circumstance.
The placement was very positive. The boys had progressed socially and educationally. A had transitioned well into secondary school. Both children had some challenges but they had been acknowledged. The carer was very attuned to their needs. An assessment for FAS was needed to indicate what supports were needed for A.
Access was taking place for one hour per month and there was video access. This was difficult for the mother as she had begun working. The CFA agreed to facilitate access twice a month, however, it had to be canvassed with A and B.
Guardian ad litem evidence
The care order application had been explained to the boys. They told the GAL that they were happy in their placement. They boys were getting on well in the placement and with the family and had friends in the area. They had a sense of belonging and security. The boys expressed the view that they wanted to stay in the placement until 18. They also had overnight access with their maternal grandmother.
The boys had told the GAL that they were concerned for their mother. B stated that if he won the lottery he would buy a house for their mother. He wanted to live with his mother but knew it could not happen. They listed their mother breaking up with her partner and improved condition of the home as a wish.
Initially the mother had not been consenting to the order to 18, but once she heard the boys’ views she consented.
At this point the mother became very upset. The court rose to allow her to take a break. When the judge returned, the mother’s barrister said that the mother was upset at the damage she had caused to her sons.
The judge commended the mother for her sobriety. He made the care order to 18 for both boys.