A judge in the Dublin Metropolitan District Court extended an existing care order for a child to the age of majority in circumstances where the mother, who was in prison, had consented. She was not present in court but was represented. The GAL was very anxious that an access visit be arranged for the child and his mother in the prison as soon as possible.
The mother had asked not to be produced from prison for the extension hearing. The court was informed by her barrister that she consented to the extension of the care order to 18. The court was told that the mother had previously attended when the case had been listed and had not been reached. Given the absence of the mother the judge requested that the evidence focus on the net issue.
The social work team leader said the social work team had attempted to work with the mother since the child had been taken into care but unfortunately she did not engage. The team leader said the mother lived a chaotic lifestyle and had mental health issues and had engaged in substance misuse. She said the last access with the child had been some 18 months previously.
The team leader said the child had been in the same foster placement since he had been taken into care. He had access with his siblings. The plan was for the child to remain in the existing placement and she confirmed it was long term matched.
The court was told that the child was attending primary school and was benefiting from play therapy. He was also on the list for further therapies.
Regarding access, the court was told that the child asked about his mother. The social work team leader confirmed that they were open to arranging an access but indicated that on the last visit to the prison the mother said she did not want to see the social worker.
The GAL was called to give evidence and she said the child enjoyed access with his uncle. She said she had spoken about the importance of arranging a prison visit for the child to see his mother.
The GAL supported the CFA’s application to extend the care order to 18. She said the child had had a rocky and turbulent start but that he was doing well and thriving. The GAL had met the child’s mother and when she was sober she was great and presented very well. She said that when she was out of custody her life was chaotic and that was why the GAL was very anxious that a visit to the prison took place. She said that there was an appropriate family room in the prison.
She said the child would have challenges in life as he had experienced a lot of trauma and had seen a man die at the table as a young child. She said 100 sessions of therapy had been funded.
The child constantly asked to see his mother and she said the social work department needed to use its very best efforts to make that happen. In relation to the recent policy changes in the CFA, she said that that there was a plan for the file to transfer as the child was now outside the catchment area of the existing social work team.
The judge queried the new policy and he was informed that the file would not transfer until a new social worker was identified and allocated.
The court heard that the child had access monthly with his uncle and his half siblings.
The judge acknowledged that there was a window of opportunity for the child to have access with his mother in the prison. He said that the visit should be arranged within four weeks with the GAL to facilitate.
The judge noted the mother consented to the order being extended and that she had said she did not want to be produced from the prison. He noted the GAL was supporting the application and that it was positive that the child was settled and doing well. He was satisfied the grounds and threshold continued to exist.
He included section 47 directions that if a social worker was unallocated for a period of four weeks, or if there was a change in foster placement considered, that the matter be re-entered.
He said it was heartbreaking to read that the child wanted to see his mother and he said the GAL was to remain appointed for a number of weeks to ensure that happened.
Extending the care order until the child was 18, he set a review date two years’ time and wished the child well. He set the aftercare review date.