The judge in a District Court in a provincial city reviewed the care orders of the four boys who ranged in age from mid-teens though to primary school age. Each of the boys was experiencing some difficulties in their lives and was engaged in a variety of ongoing therapies.
The eldest boy (A), who was in his mid-teens, had been in a relative placement with his grandmother but was currently in a residential care unit. The solicitor for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) said that the youth did not really mix with the other young people in the unit. He wanted to go back to live with his grandmother, but realised that this was not likely to happen. He had not acknowledged that he had been very unkind to his grandfather.
The youth was in third year of secondary school. His attendance that year at school was excellent, but there had been large stretches during the previous school year that he had missed. However, the youth was academically very capable and he had sat his Junior Certificate that year. It was planned that he would go abroad on holidays with his grandmother in the coming summer.
The second boy (B), was in his early teens and was also in residential care. He wanted to live with his older brother but the boy’s grandmother had not been able to cope with the two boys living with her. The solicitor reported that B was in good health generally. He had had an ADHD diagnosis, but the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) had not been able to progress with prescribing his medication for a period as he had not been in a stable placement at time. However, the CFA’s solicitor told the court that as he was now in a stable placement the prescribing of his medication would proceed. B had been assigned a mentor and despite experiencing some difficulties, he was academically stable.
The second youngest boy (C) was also in his early teens. He was in a very settled foster placement. He too had an ADHD diagnosis and was taking prescribed medication. He had been struggling with his concentration, but his ADHD medication had helped this considerably. C had been weight listed for an educational assessment. He was receiving assistance from a Special Needs Assistant (SNA). His writing skills were quite poor.
The youngest boy (D), who was still of primary school age, was in a stable general foster placement. He was in good general health. He had also an ADHD diagnosis for which he was receiving prescribed medication. He was attending national school. He was also receiving occupational therapy and was attending CHIPPs, the specialist attachment-focused trauma informed mental health service for young people in care. He had been engaging in life story work, but this had been paused as he had not been ready for it.
Access between the mother and the four siblings was an issue. The access had been taking place every four months. However, the boys were becoming very dysregulated after the access visits. The solicitor said that access between the mother and all four boys was not a good idea and that it would be better to have the mother’s access visits with just two of the boys at any one time. He said that the siblings themselves also met each other informally outside of the formal access visits.
The solicitor for the boys’ guardian ad litem (GAL) said that the GAL had submitted a long report to the court, but that she would focus on the report’s key recommendations. All four of the boys had needs. There had been some difficulties with the original relative foster placement of the two older boys, but these issues were now moving forward.
The eldest boy, A, had asked that his wish to return to live with his grandmother be considered. He acknowledged the risks that the CFA had identified with his return, but the GAL’s report said that he had engaged with therapy, as had his grandmother, and that he was now older. The GAL recommended that the return to live with his grandmother should continue to be considered rather than issuing Boy A with a “blanket no”.
The GAL reported that the process that A and his grandmother had been engaging in had been beneficial in and of itself. A was spending time with his grandmother and it would be worthwhile considering an increase in these visits. As A was on a trajectory (towards aging out of the care system), the GAL wanted to support the relationship between him and his grandmother so that he would be better able to face potential future difficulties.
The GAL was concerned about B. He was struggling and his behaviour had been concerning.
The GAL recommended that neuropsychological assessments be conducted on C and D for evidence of possible foetal alcohol syndrome which would assist in framing their Autistic Spectrum Disorder symptoms.
The GAL said that the access between the mother and the boys had been good, but that it needed to be better regulated. The boys had expressed the desire to see their mother and it would be better to support this through formal access arrangements rather than allowing the boys to meet up with her themselves on an informal basis. The solicitor understood that the boys’ mother was homeless and that the boys could meet her informally in and around the city centre.
There were ongoing multi-disciplinary meetings with all of the agencies involved in the boys’ care. The current social worker allocated to the boys was due to change and a new social worker would be allocated to their case in due course.
The judge ordered a further review of the boys in 7 months’ time and put the case in for mention the following month, to follow up on progress regarding the approval of funding for neuropsychological assessments of C and D.