A district court judge amended an existing access order in order to better support and facilitate improving access between a mother and her child in care. The court was told that the first access in five years had recently taken place, and that all parties were hoping the access could continue and grow from there. The court wanted to help, but was aware that an overly directive order could cause other problems.
The solicitor for the Child and Family Agency informed the court there had been significant work done in advance to ensure that the access went well, and that it had been very successful. She stated the therapist doing the life story work with the child, which had helped prepare for the access, had recently had to finish the work due to outside issues, but the social work team was seeking a replacement. She further stated that there was an existing order dating from 2023 outlining that access would be four times a year, and that this should be kept in place unchanged.
The solicitor for the mother told the court that good one-to-one work had been done by the therapist separately with the mother and the child in advance and this had helped access go well. She said that the mother had been very emotional about having access after such a long time, and was eager to build on it. She informed the court that there was a report from the therapist which stated that access should be six times a year and she would like to see the order amended to reflect this.
The solicitor for the guardian ad litem stated that it was the guardian’s position to affirm the existing order with no amendments, as the welfare of the child needed to be taken into account, stating that a failed access was not in the child’s best interest.
The judge expressed support for the access beginning again and was glad that things had gone well. He told the parties that he would like to be able to further support access but was conscious that the court needed to be careful in how it responded to this.
The judge said: “What I don’t want is to force the issue and have the whole thing implode but I understand that there needs to be flexibility.”
The solicitor for the mother told the court that previous court directions had been very helpful in making sure access happened, and stated that “a court order would be of assistance to provide a structure, and then leave it to the professionals for the details.”
The judge examined the existing order, and acknowledged that the tone of the order was more hopeful that directional. He said he would like to provide some further hope and asked parties: “Does the existing order contain sufficient discretion or is it too rigid?” adding, “I want the order to facilitate increased access if it goes well and not preclude it,” while acknowledging again the need for flexibility for the professionals to put the welfare of the child first.
The judge ordered that the access direction remain at four times a year, but with an amendment of an additional provision for “further or better access, if agreed” so that, should more access be possible, it would not be prevented. A further review date was set.