A district court judge in a regional town granted a care order until the age of 18 for a child of primary school age who had been in care since 2021. The mother, who was in custody, appeared by video-link and consented to the order sought.
The social worker told the court that it was in the child’s best interests for the court to grant the order to the age of 18. The child had suffered significant grief, trauma, and loss. Every effort had been made to establish a relationship with the child’s mother, but the Child and Family Agency (CFA) remained very concerned about the child’s welfare and the mother’s lack of insight into his needs. The child was doing well in his current placement and he had developed strong connections with school and friends. Reunification with the mother was unlikely to succeed, according to the social worker.
The judge said the child had been in care since 2021. He had a diagnosis of dyspraxia and queries of ASD and ADHD. He said the CFA appeared to be best placed to meet the child’s needs, and no criticism had been made of the mother’s recent efforts.
The mother, who appeared by video-link, interjected and said she had seen her child regularly until she went into custody, when access had stopped. She said she had never abused him. She said the social worker described her son as doing very well but did not mention that he acted inappropriately and spoke about sex with other children recently while in care.
The social worker confirmed the child had a diagnosis of dyspraxia, with queries regarding autism and ADHD. The CFA was working on a referral for assessments for both of these. In response to the what the mother had said, the social worker said the child had recently hit another child with a stick when emotionally dysregulated. The social worker said the child was experiencing grief, trauma, and loss following the death of an aunt and the incarceration of his mother.
The judge asked the mother if she consented to the order sought by the CFA. She confirmed that she was consenting to the order sought by the CFA. The judge said she showed great generosity, and demonstrated that she could put her child’s best interests above her own.
The CFA said significant efforts would be made to encourage access while the mother was in custody. The judge said that if it became appropriate in the future, the prison service might consider temporary release to facilitate access. The CFA lawyer said the GAL’s report recommended face-to-face access before the end of the year.
The judge said something might be arranged with the prison governor. He asked the mother if she was being considered for temporary or early release. The mother said she was due to be released in the coming weeks or months, according to her probation officer, whom she expected to see again the following week. The judge said prison overcrowding had never been as bad, but he hoped the mother’s release would take place in an organised way so she would have finances and accommodation in place beforehand.
The mother said the governor had told her that access should be court-ordered. The judge stated that if the situation was right and a suitable place was identified, access could be facilitated, but much work remained to be completed in the meantime.
The CFA lawyer asked the social worker when the ASD and ADHD assessments would be completed. The judge said there was a need to prioritise the ADHD assessment, as CAMHS had a two-year waiting list. The GAL said the child was in the public system for assessments. The school had made it clear that the ADHD assessment needed to be completed as soon as possible.
The GAL said she supported access if it could take place outside the prison setting. The judge said that if an order was required to facilitate access, he would have no difficulty granting one. He said the first occasion would have to be a success, so significant planning would be needed. The judge granted the care order for the child to the age of 18. He directed continued input from the GAL at reviews. He stated that recent video calls were going well and that during the summer months the court could assess whether face-to-face access could take place, along with any other issues.