During a final review of a care order for a girl about to age out of care the District Court in a provincial city was told that she had moved into her aftercare placement two weeks before and she was settling in well. She was more relaxed.
She was in receipt of €100 a month until her 18th birthday when her aftercare funding would kick in. There were no problems with the management of the young girl’s health condition and she was taking medication for her ADHD. She was due to have her final appointment with the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) that day and she would then transfer to the adult services.
The social worker had bought her a new phone. She was currently on a waiting list to be assigned an aftercare worker. She wanted to do a particular PLC course. The social worker said that the young girl’s relationship with her mother and younger brother had improved.
The solicitor for the guardian ad litem (GAL) told the court that the biggest questions had been the aftercare financial package for the young girl and the uncertainty around where the young girl would be after she turned 18 years of age. The GAL was very positive that the financial package had been approved and the uncertainty had been resolved.
The move to the aftercare facility had gone well. She had been dissatisfied with the previous accommodation and believed that one of the workers there had been going through her belongings. The GAL said that she would support the young girl in sending in a complaint in that regard. She had a chronic illness, but she was independently managing this well. The GAL was very happy that the staff in the aftercare facility had requested training in the management of the illness in order to support her. She wanted to remain on her ADHD medication and therefore there needed to be a seamless transfer to the adult mental health services.
The young girl had told the GAL that she wanted to attend court. This was not because she wanted to say anything, but she wanted to observe the process of which she had been a part. However, the GAL said that there were no further items outstanding that required a further court date for her case.
The GAL wanted the young girl to remain on the waiting list for an aftercare worker. She said that the drop in services in aftercare [compared to while in care] required a lot of independence from the young person’s point of view and having an aftercare worker to help navigate this was more supportive. All in all, the GAL reported that the young girl had progressed very well. There was no formal aftercare plan before the court, but all of the necessary steps regarding aftercare were in train. The judge noted that there was no further court date required but approved the GAL’s request to remain in place until the young girl turned 18 years of age. He gave the GAL liberty to apply to the court in the event of any issues arising. The judge also told the GAL that he would be very happy to allow the young girl to attend court with the GAL or the GAL’s solicitor and that she could ask any questions of the court at the end of the call over.