A judge in a provincial court concluded that the mother of a very young infant, Child A, had not been served properly with papers for an application by the Child and Family Agency (CFA) for a one-year care order. The judge also postponed an application for the dispensing of the mother’s consent so the child could attend medical appointments as the mother had not been served with that application either. The judge extended the interim care order for A for one week to facilitate substituted service of the applications on the mother by WhatsApp.
The social worker told the court that A’s mother was pregnant but actively in addiction. She had gone missing from hospital earlier but was back. A’s father had not been identified and the CFA had been informed the mother was not fit to engage with the process in court. The social worker said A had been reviewed medically and would require an MRI scan as the left side of his body was weak and his head was larger than normal. He had been born prematurely and had been exposed to substances.
The judge asked if A’s mother had been served with the proceedings as the address given was incorrect and she was in hospital. The CFA lawyer pointed out that they had used the address that had been provided to them. The social worker said she had phoned the mother during the previous month. The social worker confirmed that A’s mother was aware that there were court proceedings happening on that date. The CFA lawyer asked the judge if it would be better to extend the interim care order and serve the mother again with the proceedings.
Judge: “But the mother is not on notice of the interim care order application…if Mam is aware of court today does she know why?”
The social worker said she could not say for definite if A’s mother was aware that a care order application was due to be made in court that day. The CFA lawyer asked the judge if she could text the application to A’s mother. The judge asked if the mother was using WhatsApp and the CFA lawyer requested that substituted service be allowed by WhatsApp. The judge granted the substituted service of the application for the one-year care order on A’s mother to be made by WhatsApp.
The lawyer for the guardian ad litem (GAL) said that the GAL was supportive of the application for the care order. She stated that there was also a necessity for A’s pre-natal medical records to be supplied and the judge made a direction that these be passed on.
The CFA lawyer made a Section 47 application that A’s mother’s consent be dispensed with in order for him to be able to attend upcoming medical appointments. The judge, however, did not accede to this as she stated the application was not properly before the court as there was no indication that the child’s mother had been served. The matter was put back to the afternoon to allow the CFA the opportunity to check if the mother had been served with the application.
When court resumed in the afternoon, the CFA lawyer confirmed that A’s mother had not been served with the application. The judge then extended the interim care order for one week as she was satisfied that the threshold continued and A’s health, development and welfare was likely to be neglected if the order was not made. She directed that A’s mother be served by substituted service on WhatsApp with the application for the one-year care order and the Section 47 application for the dispensing of the mother’s consent to allow the child to attend his upcoming medical appointments. The matter was listed for the following week.