A judge in a rural court, dealing with an application to extend a Section 18 care order for a child in her mid-teens, agreed to meet with the child to hear her views.
The mother left the courthouse before the case was heard. She had objected to the engagement of an interpreter, claiming that she had found him difficult to understand on a previous occasion. The judge refused the mother’s application to dispense with the engagement of the interpreter and went on to hear evidence that the teenager had consented to new medication. He directed that the in-camera rule could be lifted to facilitate a mediator to attempt to settle disagreements between the mother and social workers and listed the case for a date three weeks later.
The lawyer for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) explained that this was an application to extend a Section 18 care order for a child in her mid-teens. An interpreter was engaged to facilitate the child’s mother to participate in the proceedings. Immediately after the interpreter was sworn in, the mother’s lawyer told the court that the mother had objected strenuously to the appointment of this interpreter. When she was asked the reason for her objection, the mother’s lawyer stated that this interpreter had previously been engaged in the case and that the mother had found him very difficult to understand and was now demanding that an alternative interpreter be appointed.
The judge was surprised at this objection and said that the interpreter, who was present in court, was experienced and that he was perfectly satisfied with his standard of work so far. He stated that he was not acceding to the mother’s application to have an alternative interpreter appointed. The judge said he noted the mother’s objection but that he was not going to dispense with the services of the interpreter.
The mother’s lawyer informed the court that the mother had already left the building once she saw the interpreter. At this point the judge told the interpreter that due to the absence of the child’s mother, he was free to go.
Judge: “We will just get on with it.”
The social worker confirmed for the CFA lawyer that her written report was true and accurate. She advised the court that she believed that the threshold continued to exist for the continuation of the Section 18 care order. The lawyer for the CFA told the judge that there had been considerable difficulties between the mother and the CFA social workers and between the mother and the guardian ad litem (GAL).
The social worker explained that discussions had taken place to attempt to sort these difficulties but that the child had been the one suffering as a result. The CFA lawyer suggested that a mediator be engaged to attempt to deal with the conflict. He asked the judge to consider lifting the in-camera rule to enable reports about matters in the case to be shared with a mediator. He reminded the judge that there was no consent from the child’s mother for the extension of the care order.
The mother’s lawyer informed the court that the mother had been asked to sign written documentation that day in court. She stated that the reason the child had been in care was due to the child’s mental health issues and yet these documents did not outline either the name of the treating psychiatrist or the name of the new medication to be offered. She said that the social work report did not explain the documentation with any clarity. The lawyer said the mother was concerned that the child had missed a number of appointments with the child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) and was seeking some clarification on this.
The social worker agreed that her written report did not include details of the medication and said she was making a verbal addendum to her report. She advised that the child was being supported to re-engage with CAMHS and that this was supported by the CFA following a lengthy consultation. The new medications had been explained to the child and she had been given 12 hours to think about her consent or otherwise to the new medication. The decision reached by the child after 12 hours was that she would consent to the medication. The social worker told the court that she had only received the said documentation herself at 4.30 pm on the previous evening. The GAL said that she supported the re-engagement of the child with CAMHS and also her consent to the new medication.
The mother’s lawyer asked the CFA lawyer if the social workers wished the mother to meet with the psychiatrist. The judge stated that there was nothing that could be done until the GAL got a chance to meet with the mother again. The social worker advised that the mother was welcome to come to the support meeting but she asked that the mother might fill in the documentation. The mother’s lawyer asked if the name of the psychiatrist could be supplied as the documentation omitted it. The social worker gave the psychiatrist’s surname.
The GAL’s barrister told the judge that the child, who was in her mid-teens, had expressed a wish to meet with the judge. The judge immediately said that he would be delighted to meet with her.
Judge: “[Child] is at an age to give her own voice.”
The judge listed the matter for a date three weeks later.