The CFA applied to a District Court in a rural town for the re-entry of a supervision order in a case involving a teenager suffering from a serious medical condition, where directions had been made previously and not adhered to. The court was informed that the teenager, now 17, had been outside the jurisdiction, but had returned.
The parents were legally represented and the court was informed that they had provided an undertaking that they would not interfere with the social work visits and they were informed that there was a need for them to engage with the process. The social workers struggled to engage with the parents. The parents had agreed to accommodate a doctor’s visit for the teenager. Previously the teenager and parents had not attended medical appointments.
The teenager had been diagnosed with a serious medical condition which the parents were refusing to allow be treated. They had sought to use alternative medicine, including herbs, to treat the teenager. The court was updated on the medical condition and although a scan should have been conducted in Ireland it had not been, although a scan had been done in another country.
The court was told that the GAL had quite a positive relationship with the parents. However, the social worker required another support worker to accompany her to the family home to conduct the required reviews and assessments.
The judge put the case back for one week and ordered that on the next date confirmation be provided that the teenager had seen a medical professional and had either been referred or had actually visited that professional. The court wanted to see progress and was very unhappy with the progress that had been made. The judge said it was an unprecedented situation with a laissez-faire attitude by the parents.
The GAL was called to give evidence and she said she had been involved in the case conference and had gained access to the home on two occasions. She said the family were very anxious and fearful and that they had been shocked by the medical diagnosis of the teenager. She said the parents had informed her that they were open to meeting another doctor and that the scan that had been done would be shared. It was pointed out that it should be another doctor that should carry out the assessment and not the previous one.
The family were against the usual treatment for such a condition and were more in favour of herbal remedies. The GAL said the teenager’s health had improved somewhat and she was able to manage the stair and the pain.
She painted a picture of the teenager and said she was articulate and had no previous issues at school but she was not currently in school as she was focusing on her health issues. The GAL said the teenager grasped the concepts surrounding the case.
She said it was a balancing act between forcing her to obtain treatment and being hopeful that she would get on board.
The judge said that the case was urgent and was serious. She wanted an updated medical report for the next week and she said that there had been a lot of obstruction in the case and that the State might need to consider taking a further step. The judge retained seisin of the case and adjourned it for one week to allow for an updated medical report to be provided.
This case had been back before the court on a number of occasions since the Child Law Project had last covered it.
In the intervening period, the social worker had continued to visit the teenager once every two weeks as per the guidelines of the teenager being listed on the Child Protection Notification System (CPNS). The social worker reported that the teenager had appeared well and in good spirits.
During one of the visits, the social worker informed the teenager that the GAL had informed the court that the teenager had felt stressed by the CFA and the court proceedings. The social worker had told the teenager that it was not their intention to make her stressed and asked her if there was anything he could do to make it less stressful.
The teenager had replied it was not the visits but the overall court proceedings that surrounded her that stressed her out. The social worker had been in ongoing contact with the GAL regarding shared updates on the teenager and both continued to parallel plan in respect to visiting the teenager to ensure she was seen by a professional a minimum of one day a week.
In the intervening period, the social worker had received a call from the HSE to advise him that a doctor and a palliative care team member were proposing to visit the home to ascertain how the teenager was doing and how the pain levels were being managed. Due to the relationship with the teenager’s parents and the HSE the social worker was asked to attend. However, when the visit was broached with the teenager’s mother the family, including the teenager, were reluctant for any such visit to occur.
When this case was next covered by the Child Law Project, it came before the judge who had granted the original supervision order. The case was listed for mention only. However, the solicitor for the family informed the judge that the teenager was in attendance and wished to come into the court. The judge expressed her displeasure at this as there had been no prior notice of the attendance of the teenager at the court.
The parents and teenager were however brought into the court and the judge informed all she was “beyond worried” in respect of the case and she noted that the social work team were doing everything possible.
The judge said the CFA had a responsibility to all children under 18 and she noted the parents did not want the involvement of the HSE. However, the teenager was suffering with a serious illness and the parents had not engaged with any treatment for her in this country.
The judge said, to date, the court had been going along with their wishes. She noted the teenager had been offered palliative care and the services of a consultant. The judge said again she was beyond concerned that they were not availing of the most straightforward of treatment, the GP or palliative care.
The judge said the CFA had a responsibility to children. She was concerned the teenager was not getting the necessary treatment.
The court directed that the teenager be seen by the HSE doctor, that the social worker should also attend under the Supervision Order and that the GAL should visit. The judge said the teenager was a very articulate girl but that the right thing was not being done in respect of her health. The judge said the teenager was to get any treatment and support needed and that it was now time to let the professionals deal with things. The matter was to be kept before the court for review and it would be back before the court the next month.
This case came back before the court for a further review. The judge was anxious for the Child Law Reporting team to continue to report on the case and asked the CFA solicitor to provide the reporter with any assistance.
There were ongoing concerns for this teenager who was approaching the age of majority and who was refusing to be properly cared for by medical professionals. The parents were not supportive of the teenager being medically reviewed by specialists. The HSE had not been able to access the home or liaise with the teenager or to medically assess her.
The judge said the parents were not parenting the teenager and were not doing what was in the best interests of the child. She also said that the case should in fact be a wardship matter and she thought that by now, common sense would have prevailed. She acknowledged the social work team had bent over backwards regarding the case.
The solicitor for the GAL requested that the court, of its own motion, join the HSE as a party to the proceedings and that medical advices be sought from them.
The court heard that both the social worker and the GAL continued to visit the home and the teenager on alternate weeks to ensure that at least one professional was meeting with the teenager weekly. Any updates were shared. The court was told that the teenager was not attending education as she was focusing on her health.
The solicitor for the GAL said that the GAL had visited recently and while the teenager appeared to be in good spirits the GAL observed that she had difficulty getting up off the couch. The social workers wanted to continue to work with the family however they were conscious that the supervision order was due to expire. The judge directed that the HSE be joined to the proceedings and that they should attend court to explain any future action. There was also an option to prosecute under Section 19 of the Child Care Act. This case was listed again two weeks later.