A District Court judge granted a care order for three children, initially sought by the Child and Family Agency (CFA) for 12 months, but extended by the court to 18 months.
The social worker told the court that since the interim care order had been granted the children had lived with their paternal grandparents and had settled very well. They had returned happily to school. The children had weekend video access with their father, who appeared by video link from prison and was represented by a lawyer. The father said he was content with the arrangement as the children were with his parents. The social worker reported that this contact worked well.
There had been no access with the mother for several weeks. The children had said they would like contact when their mother when she was sober and another safe adult was present. The CFA had made repeated attempts to reach the mother without success.
The social worker said the children were doing very well overall. The social worker stated that the eldest child often tried to minimise the impact of the situation on his younger siblings. Recent home visits had shown the children to be clean, tidy and well-provided with clothes. The CFA was satisfied with the placement.
The judge said a 12-month order made little sense as the case would otherwise return the following year while the father remained in prison for some time. He granted an 18-month care order with a review in six months.
No guardian ad litem (GAL) had been assigned. The judge appointed one, telling the father that his role was limited because of his imprisonment and the mother’s active addiction. He said the GAL would help support the social worker and keep the case on track.
The judge listed the case for mention in one month to finalise the GAL appointment. He directed that a choice of GAL be provided for consideration and told the father that his views would be taken into account.