A judge in a provincial District Court reviewed the care orders for four children, which had been extended for three years seven months earlier. The father did not accept the need for the care orders and was planning to judicially review the decision. However, he was engaging with the Child and Family Agency/Tusla. The parents had separate legal representation. The children’s father was present in the court for the review but their mother did not attend and had not provided her solicitor with any instructions.
The four children were A, a teenager and the eldest of the four, B, the second eldest and of primary school age, both girls, and boys C and D who were younger again and also of primary school age.
The social worker told the court that A had settled into residential care and was generally in good health. She had previously been referred to the National Interagency Prevention Programme (NIAPP) as a result of some inappropriate sexual behaviour with another child. The social work department had contacted NIAPP again now that she was in a settled placement.
A was behind her peers educationally and would require some additional supports to help her prepare for her Leaving Certificate. However, she was ambitious and had already obtained part-time work with a supermarket.
B was much younger and was still in primary school. The social worker said that she tested boundaries, but was ultimately compliant with rules. She had some issues with food, she was quite overweight and seemed to be afraid that her food would “disappear”. She had had an ASD assessment, but it was inconclusive. It was planned to do another ASD assessment in a couple of years’ time. An ADHD assessment might also be warranted in the future. She needed some supports in school and, as was the case for all of the younger children, she was engaged in life story work.
The solicitor for the children’s guardian ad litem (GAL) told the court that the GAL was at the early stages of getting to know the girls. She said that A was more reluctant to engage with her and just tolerated her. The GAL felt that she might not be of great benefit to A. However, she had expressed her views and wishes to the GAL. She wanted to be out of care and back home. She was critical of what had happened to the family. She wanted more access with her siblings and said that she did not properly see her brothers.
The GAL’s solicitor said that B was younger and there was a greater opportunity for the GAL to forge a bond with her. B had a limited understanding of the care situation. She wanted to see her aunt and also wanted to see the rest of her family together.
The GAL’s main issues were around increasing the contact between the siblings and between the parents and the children. There had been difficulties with access involving the parents. For example, one of the boys had not been able to meet his mother despite several opportunities. The GAL recommended that the siblings’ access with each other be considered separately and that it should be at a minimum once monthly. She also recommended that B would undergo an educational assessment and would be approved for play therapy.
The father’s barrister told the court that he did not accept the care order decision that had been made in respect of the children. She said that he had been given leave to proceed with a judicial review in which the CFA would be the respondent. Despite this, he continued to engage with the CFA. He wanted to be reunified with his children.
The mother’s solicitor told the court that the mother was not present in court and had not returned her calls or responded to any of her letters.
The CFA’s solicitor told the court that the boys C and D were in a stable relative foster placement for more than one and a half years. There had been some difficulties in the relationship between the boys’ father and the foster carers.
Both boys were attending pre-school and had been offered places with a national school. Both were receiving speech and language therapy. One of the boys, C, also had been assessed for ASD but had not met the threshold. However, there had been a recommendation for occupational therapy and speech and language therapy. It was planned to review this boy again after he had started primary school. He struggled with his emotional regulation and received support from a special needs assistant and had regular sensory breaks.
She said that life story work needed to be done with all of the children. There was weekly access between the children and their father and the father was looking for it to be increased. The children had not seen their mother for more than six months.
The boys were doing well in their placement.
The boys’ GAL also reported that the relative foster placement was stable. She noted that the speech of C had been very poor but that speech and language therapy had greatly improved this and he was starting to find his voice. He had been assessed as not having ASD and in fact some of his issues had lessened.
The GAL’s report said that all was very positive. There were some outstanding issues but that these were being addressed by the social worker. The GAL had not had any contact with the boys’ mother, despite having made several attempts. However, she had attended access with the boys’ father and had found it to be a very positive experience for them. She recommended extending the access on a phased basis to allow the children get used to the new regime.
The father’s barrister repeated that the father did not accept court’s care order for the boys. She also said that he had concerns regarding their foster placement. However, he was willing to engage with access with all of the children. He was committed to remaining engaged with his children and was ultimately seeking reunification with them. The judge listed another review of the children’s situations in two months’ time.