The District Court made a care order (CO) in respect of a non-verbal autistic child. The matter was heard over three days.
On the second day of the hearing the father had initially refused to attend, however he later attended. The mother was late to the hearing.
A social worker said that following a car crash in 2018 an emergency care order (ECO) was made in respect of the girl. The concern at that time was that the girl was being emotionally and physically neglected. She had trouble regulating, she banged her head, wet the bed, and would bite her lip and mouth. In addition, she was not gaining weight and was eating her own faeces.
The girl had subsequently returned to her mother’s care. She later attended a specialist pre-school, a charity which provides interventions for children aged three to seven with autism. The interventions improved the long-term progress of children with autism. The school did not provide transportation for the students.
The programme director said that when the girl started at the school she presented as extremely passive, “like she was dead inside”. She would go with anyone who came to collect her. She also had numerous attendance issues. The pre-school’s staff had concerns regarding the mother’s sobriety and whether she could safely collect her child from school as there were several incidents where the mother was found to be under the influence. Therefore, the pre-school implemented a care plan for collection of the child.
At one point the school moved to a new location. New concerns arose as the girl would go with anyone, and often staff could not contact the mother and they never knew who would collect the girl. Parents normally collected their children between 4 and 5pm, however on one occasion the girl’s mother did not arrive until after 6pm.
The pre-school had a policy that children could not be left alone with an adult, therefore the school had to have several staff remain until the girl was collected. The school was also aware that the mother had lost her driver’s licence, so staff tried to engage the mother in conversation to determine how the mother and daughter were getting home. It transpired that the mother was driving.
On another occasion the mother was 45 minutes late. An older gentleman who identified himself as the girl’s grandfather arrived to collect her. On other occasions the girl’s older brother also collected her, however the staff also had concerns about his sobriety. During one school collection he left through the school door without waiting for his sister so there was a huge distance between him and the girl. Due to ongoing safety concerns the pre-school refused to allow the brother to continue to collect his sister. This decision was communicated through the girl’s social worker as the school wanted to maintain a positive relationship with the mother.
The girl was assessed as having a normal IQ which meant that she should have been developing skills quickly, however that did not happen. During her first year of school, she missed 91 days. She would attend one or two days a week then might not attend for the next two weeks.
Due to her high absenteeism the school dropped other programmes they worked on with the girl and focused solely on communication. The girl regressed in the number of skills she had. She lost responding to her own name, putting shapes in their correct position in a box, being able to match pictures, as well as significant imitation skills. She would regularly face a corner and bang her head. The school staff were very distressed.
The programme director said that it was difficult to build a working rapport with the mother. The mother did not engage with the school or the education plan. The mother would also brush off any new skills that the girl learned saying that the girl already had those skills.
The girl was taken into care again under an emergency care order (ECO). The CFA contacted the pre-school and asked if there were any parents at the school that could foster the girl. The school identified a family whose mother worked in education and the father in paediatrics.
When the girl was taken into care the school assumed she would be traumatised and would be distressed when she next attended school, however that was not the case. The programme director said that there was a drastic change when she was taken into care. She became more open to relationships and sought out interactions. Previously the school saw little facial recognition. If the mother got very close to the girl’s face, she might smile a little, however after being taken into care the girl arrived at pre-school smiling and engaging. She recognised her foster father when he collected her, she smiled at him and put her arms out to him. The programme director said that it was a huge improvement from the little girl that would sit in the corner and face the wall.
Once she went into foster care the girl learned a new skill almost every day, such as communicating what she wanted for lunch. She progressed very quickly, therefore she moved on to a communications software. She went up three levels in communication, so the school started to prepare her for independent work.
After the girl was taken into care the school helped facilitate access between mother and daughter. They allocated a room specifically for access which the girl would not use for any other purpose. The programme director said that it appeared that the girl did not want to go to access as she would get very distressed when entering the room and afterwards she would be angry.
Her mother attended for access at the end of the school day when the other children were going home, however the girl would not go to her own mother, but she would go to the other mothers and hold their hand. The mother then started carrying sweets in her pockets so that her daughter would go to her.
During access, the mother would pick her daughter up and spin her around which can be dysregulating for autistic children. The girl would bring her knees up to her mother’s chest to put distance between them. When access was finished the girl would run away from her mother. After visitation, she would be very stressed.
She would sit on a teacher’s lap, pick at her own face, and want to be held. Because she did not leave the access room happy, the school tried using a compression vest on her during access and for one hour afterwards in an effort to calm her. The school did not want to tell the mother that they thought that her daughter did not want to see her so they told her that the compression vest was to help regulate her daughter.
Access at the school eventually ended due to the mother’s behaviour towards staff. The programme director said that the mother’s body language was forceful and she was verbally aggressive. She screamed and was threatening and demeaning, often complaining about the girl’s hair or the clothes that the foster carer dressed her in. She also threatened the school secretary and accused the school of trying to take her child. On another occasion the mother called the school to cancel access because she was ill. Because the school only facilitated access, they advised her that she needed to contact her social worker. The mother raged and yelled and kept calling the school. The school subsequently advised the CFA that they could no longer have access meetings at the school.
The judge said that she was struck by the change in the girl after viewing video clips of her before and after going into care.
The father’s barrister said that the father accepted that he was not able to provide full time care for his daughter therefore he consented to a care order until the age of 18.
The mother’s barrister said that the mother loved her daughter and wanted what was best for her. She also consented to a care order until the age of 18.