The District Court made a care order (CO) until the age of 18 in respect of a very young boy who had suffered serious non-accidental injury. The mother was legally represented and had an advocate. The child’s father was unknown.
Initially legal representatives for the CFA and the mother told the court that the application would be strongly contested and the case was scheduled to run for two days with seven witnesses. The mother’s barrister said that the mother would consent to a two-year care order, however the Child and Family Agency (CFA) would not accept that proposal. The CFA said that if a care order until the age of 18 was granted the mother could make an application for a discharge order at any time.
The child had been taken into care after he had been brought to hospital by ambulance with very serious, non-accidental injuries to his arm and leg. The social worker said that although he had recovered, his gait had been affected by the injury to his leg and he would need ongoing physiotherapy.
The mother and her partner had been charged with causing serious harm and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had directed that the matter proceed on indictment. The man involved had pleaded guilty and received a prison sentence of 20 months. The mother’s matter had not yet been decided by the courts.
After a short break, the mother’s barrister said that the mother would consent to the care order until the age of 18. The mother was very emotional. He said that the mother had been in care herself. She was making efforts at rehabilitation and access was going well.
The social worker said that within a few months of working with mother it was evident that she loved and supported her son, however, despite this there was a real risk that he could be injured again if he was returned to her. The mother needed to address her mental health issues and the pattern of relationships she entered into. She also needed to engage with addiction and mental health services to help regulate her emotions. She said that the CFA would help support the mother to engage with those services.
The guardian ad litem (GAL) said that access was going well and that it was lovely to see the bond between mother and child. During one access the boy had been lying on his mother’s chest and did not want to be moved. The boy had initially presented as reluctant to engage with anyone, however he had become more curious, and his personality had started to come out.
The GAL noted that the mother had significant addiction issues, she was using a cocktail of drugs. The GAL said that the mother is now coherent and can see a level of maturity, but that could change. The doctor noted that therapy would be very difficult for the mother. He suggested that the mother get her drug addiction under control first.
The social worker said that the mother had travelled a long distance to see her son and that access was very positive. She was happy with the mother’s presentation at access and said that the mother worked very well with social workers.
The boy had been placed with a committed foster carer who was long-term matched. The foster carers were very proactive with the boy’s creche and medical appointments. The court made a care order until the age of 18 and directed that the GAL be reappointed prior to the review.