A Dublin District Court considered the plans for after-care for five teenagers due to age out of the care system as they turned 18.
First case
The court heard a review of a girl detained in the UK, as no suitable placement existed in Ireland. Her primary diagnosis was “emotionally unstable personality disorder”.
One option for the girl’s after care placement was described as a “locked rehabilitation unit”, supported by a Scottish after care nursing service. It is run by a social care provider of residential or therapeutic services for young people.
The matter was listed before both the District Court and the High Court, as the girl was subject to a Special Care Order, which can only be granted by the High Court. The court heard how the girl did not attend the High Court proceedings, but she had asked to see the District Court judge to thank the court for its oversight of her case. The judge indicated that he would accommodate this request. He ruled that the matter was to remain in his list until the after-care placement was agreed, after which time the review could be concluded.
Second case
In a case where a boy was moving on from care the court heard that life story work was completed; the boy had a good sense of self and identity, and a clear understanding of why he was in care. He had resided in a residential care unit for a number of years, received a good standard of care, and had a good relationship with staff. He received occupational therapy for a diagnosis of dyspraxia.
The court heard how, in preparation for moving on from care, the boy was learning independent living skills. The solicitor noted that there was a draft after-care plan to be finalised. Professionals, including a psychotherapist from Pathways (the residential care provider), anticipated that the transition to an after-care placement would be challenging for the boy, who would need to fit in with other occupants. By way of parallel planning, the Agency had two alternative after-care placements on standby. The planned after-care placement was located within commuting distance to a Youth Reach programme for the boy.
Third case
In another case the court heard of two brothers’ imminent aging out. One had been in his placement since he was eight months of age, and the other brother was in his placement since the age of one. Both had a good relationship with their father and saw him weekly, with less frequent contact with their mother. One of the boys had dyslexia, had recently completed his Junior Certificate, and was currently in transition year in school. The other boy was very settled in his placement, which was a family home.
There had been some issues recently when he was caught drinking with his girlfriend. A referral was made to youth mental health organisation Jigsaw, which the court heard had a two-week waiting list, and an intervention to deal with that behaviour was due to commence. The guardian ad litem (GAL) for both boys confirmed that they had been approved for an Enhanced After Care Payment. The judge said that the GAL was to remain appointed until both boys aged out. He wished them well and formally concluded their after care review.
Fourth and fifth cases: Transgender issue
Two after-care reviews concerned transgender children. In one the judge said there was “too much reference to the transgender issue” and insisted that a child be referred to by their original first name during a review of three siblings in care.
The social worker described how one of the children was “gender transitioning” from a girl to a boy, now going by a boy’s name. The social worker spoke of how the child was “experiencing gender dysphoria” and was refusing to go to school. The court heard that the child was enrolled in a boys’ school. The child was undergoing therapeutic interventions at Treehouse, a trauma-focused therapeutic service for children, and was “really benefitting from that intervention”, the social worker said.
The judge insisted that the child be referred to by their original girl’s forename. He read from a psychologist’s expert report before the court. In her report, the psychologist “rejected the ideological label of transgender children identification.” She described it as a “major psycho-social act” before which there ought to be an “individualised care plan, screening for autism and mental health issues”.
The judge said that the child had suffered “much trauma” in life. The social worker confirmed that Treehouse was a “trauma informed” service. The judge said that for “any child on the cusp of or going through adolescence, that is a challenge in and of itself”. He said that the professionals were “placing too much reference on the transgender issue… without underlying issues being addressed”.
He listed the matter For Mention in two weeks’ time when a date for a “more substantive review” would be set.
In another review of a transgender child due to turn 18, the judge said it was a “biological reality” that the child was a “biological girl”, as the court considered after-care planning. The minor was due to “age out” of care and after care planning was underway in circumstances where the child had set fire to a special emergency unit.
A solicitor for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) recalled how the court had made a “previous direction not to place him in a residential unit”. The judge corrected the solicitor and said it was a “biological reality” and the child was a “biological girl”.
The court heard that, instead of a residential unit, the child had been placed in a special emergency arrangement (SEA). The child had set fire to the SEA and caused “serious damage”. However, the placement provider had not retracted their offer of an after-care placement. It said that, in light of recent events, any placement would require at least two exits.
Sixth case
The District Court reviewed the situation of a young person in long-term care who was approaching 18, noting his progress and re-engagement with his mother, and the need to plan for accommodation and support in adulthood.
The CFA representative asked that the matter be adjourned for a month for a further review. She told the court that the young person had re-engaged with contact with his mother and was doing very well in his residential unit. There had been a period when contact was not possible due to the mother’s mental health, but this had improved and access had resumed.
The young person remained in a residential unit and, according to the CFA, “has thrived” there. He has applied for disability allowance. The court was told that he would need to move accommodation once he turned 18 and that he was aware of this. The CFA representative said he would benefit from further review, including planning for aftercare.
The mother was legally represented. Her solicitor said the mother normally attended court but was not present that day. She said the mother was very pleased with the current access arrangements. The father’s representative made no submissions. The GAL’s representative did not add to the evidence.
The judge described the situation as positive and noted the potential for aftercare supports. He adjourned the matter to for a month for further review as the young person approaches his 18th birthday within a number of weeks.