The judge in a District Court in a provincial city reviewed the long-term care orders for three children, A, B and C, who ranged in ages from secondary school to primary school age. The children’s parents had died of drug related causes. The children had been placed in foster care with their parental grandmother. This was going well for the two younger children, but the eldest child, A, was experiencing ongoing stresses at home in his foster placement and was currently in an emergency placement.
The Child and Family Agency’s (CFA’s) solicitor told the court that A was attending secondary school and was receiving occupational therapy. The ongoing stresses had caused a dip in his school work. The fostering grandmother had begun family therapy and respite care had been recommended for A on a weekly basis with some extra respite monthly.
A was attending school, the problem arose after school, when he was not returning home between 4pm and 9pm. His whereabouts during this period were unknown and he seemed to be hanging out in places of concern. The social worker was coming to the placement weekly as a result.
Two months earlier the grandmother had asked the CFA to end the placement for A. At the time, she told the CFA that the relationship between A and her husband had been fraught and she had thought her husband was going to hit the boy. The CFA arranged for five nights of respite care for him.
A safety plan was instigated so that when matters became critical A could go to his parental uncle. However, matters had not improved and the grandmother told the CFA that she did not want A back in the house. A had been in an emergency placement for the previous three days. A’s situation was being reviewed weekly and the National Placement Team had been updated. The CFA were looking for another foster placement for A that would meet his ongoing care needs.
The other two children were doing well. B was a bright and very joyful child. She had a strong attachment with her pet dog. She was preparing to go to secondary school. She had started to ask questions about her parent’s deaths and had asked to engage in life story therapy. However, the relationship between B and A was not great.
C was the youngest and was still in primary school. He got on very well with his grandparents. He was very attached to his grandfather, with whom he played golf. Unfortunately, his grandfather had been diagnosed with a terminal illness.
The guardian ad litem’s (GAL) solicitor told the court that the children’s GAL was due to retire and that a new GAL would need to be appointed.
The GAL’s report was somewhat out of date in light of A’s need for an emergency placement. However, the report referred to the considerable work that had been undertaken by the placement team. The report also highlighted the family therapy that was being done, but that progress had been slow and difficult. However, it was apparent that the placement could no longer be salvaged.
Therapeutic supports remained in place for A. A referral for an ADHD assessment had also been made by the boy’s GP and that too remained in place. The emergency placement was due to end in 28 days’ time and the GAL did not know where A would be at that time. The GAL was very complimentary about the A’s social worker, who she said had been very proactive with the family. The GAL would accompany A to his home to collect his belongings.
The GAL reported that A and C were doing very well considering. However, the mood in the foster home had been impacting them.
In relation to B, the life story work was very important to her. If there was to be a delay in the provision of the life story therapy, then the GAL was recommending that a private provider should be sourced as this was very important given the history of the children.
C had not exhibited any need for therapeutic interventions. However, he was very vulnerable, particularly as his grandfather had a terminal diagnosis. The GAL recommended that therapeutic work remain on the agenda.
The GAL said that the children had already experienced huge loss in their family and were facing even more loss. There was no time frame in place for the life story work to commence for B so the GAL asked the court that the matter remain under its supervision. He suggested that the matter be listed again for mention to look at the wait list for this therapy to begin and also to look at longer term placement options for A whose emergency placement was due to end in 28 days’ time.
The judge asked the parties why A was not being returned to his home. “Was he concerned about punishment or was he creating the tensions?” The CFA’s solicitor replied that the issue was that A had had a lot of trauma in his life and his grandparents were exasperated.
The judge directed that there be a further review of all children in three weeks’ time but that the review would primarily focus on sourcing a new placement for Boy A.