A judge in a provincial city granted full care orders for two primary school age children until the age of 18 years, with a review scheduled in six months’ time. He directed that the GAL remain appointed until that review and that access arrangements were to remain at the discretion of the CFA.
The order followed a series of hearings, beginning with the extension of interim care orders for four months, with the consent of the parents. Separate applications were made for each child, as the CFA had been informed that they had different fathers. Both putative fathers were in court and represented. Both children were living with a relative.
In the case involving B, a boy, the CFA initially applied for the extension of the interim care order to allow a full assessment of the child’s father with a view to him potentially taking over caring for his young son. B was a young boy of primary school age who had been diagnosed with autism and had developmental delays.
The social worker said that she had been newly appointed to the case. She said that the mother was not present in court and was known to have left the area. She had been in communication with the boy’s mother, but the mother had not been in a good place mentally. However, she had consented to a previous three-month interim care order and was also consenting to this further four-month extension.
She said that the boy’s father wanted to take over care of the young boy, but it was necessary that a full assessment of the father be carried out first. It was also necessary to re-establish access between the father and the boy as he had not seen the him for about three years. The social worker said that this would have to go at a slow pace, given the child’s needs.
The father’s solicitor asked how long the assessment would take. The social worker said that she aimed to have it completed before the next court date and that it was also necessary for her to get to know the young boy. The father’s solicitor told the court that the father had had no updates about his son and the social worker committed to ensuring that he was regularly updated in future.
In light of the evidence, the judge ordered the extension of the interim care order for B for a further four months with the consent of his parents.
The CFA’s second application was for the court to grant an extension of the interim care order for B’s elder half-sister, A, for a further four months with the consent of her parents. The girl was also of primary school going age. The mother of A was the same as for B, while the fathers of the two children were different, the CFA solicitor said.
A’s assumed father told the court that while he was not currently able to care for his daughter, he would like to be considered able to take care of her in the future and was willing to take part in a parental capacity assessment for that purpose.
The judge granted the extension to the interim care order for the young girl for a further four months on consent of the parents.
At a later hearing the judge granted short term full care orders for the two half-siblings.
The court first dealt with the application concerning A, the older of the two siblings. Her father was present in court and was legally represented, though the court was told that he had to leave early in order to attend a scheduled access visit with his daughter. The mother was not present in court and had not engaged with the proceedings.
The CFA’s solicitor told the court that they had had ongoing difficulties in contacting A’s mother. However, her mother had previously provided written consent, which was on file, for a care order for a period of four months. The CFA currently had no known address for the mother, and her lack of engagement had made it challenging to obtain consent for medical appointments and other essential matters. The social worker said that the girl’s foster carers were planning to travel abroad and they required the mother’s consent to apply for a passport for A, which had not yet been secured.
A’s father had consented to undergoing a DNA test. The social worker told the court that funding for the test had been approved and the DNA test was pending.
On the basis of the parents’ consent, the court granted a full care order for A for a period of four months.
The court then turned to B. The boy’s biological father was present and was legally represented. The father had consistently supported the care arrangement and had provided written consent for a full care order until the child reached the age of 18. However, in the interest of keeping both siblings on the same review timeline, the court was asked to grant a four-month care order in line with A’s order.
B was currently in a foster placement with his maternal aunt and uncle, along with his sister. The placement was described as very positive and there was a close bond between the siblings. B had been diagnosed with autism and was non-verbal. He was attending a special school outside the regional city and was said to be making good progress. The foster carers were very in tune with his needs and had adapted their home to include a sensory room.
Access with his father occurred every two months and was going very well. The father had requested more frequent access but this had not been possible due to the child’s needs. The social worker said that access had to go at the child’s pace. He became unsettled by new people. The social worker was open to increasing access over time, but said that it would stay at every two months for the time being.
The father’s solicitor asked the court if the CFA would tell him what he needed to do to improve access with his son. He said that the boy’s father was willing to learn new skills, such as sign language, to help support his relationship with his son. The CFA confirmed they would provide guidance on how the father could enhance his involvement.
The solicitor for the guardian ad litem (GAL) raised the importance of including the school and the Children’s Disability Network Team (CDNT) in the upcoming care review. The GAL also supported the application for a passport for B. The court noted that while the father had previously consented to a longer care order, the four-month order was appropriate to align with his sister’s case.
The court granted a four-month care order for B on consent and directed that the father be included in the ongoing care planning process.
Full care orders for both children until the age of 18 were granted when the case next came before the court.
The solicitor for the CFA told the court that the delay in making the full care order applications was due to the emergence of new information from a recent DNA test which significantly altered the circumstances for A. The DNA test revealed that the man previously thought to be A’s father, and who had been registered as her father on her birth certificate, was not in fact her biological parent. Instead, the test confirmed that her biological father was, in fact, the father of her younger sibling, B.
The information had come as a shock to all parties. The CFA’s solicitor said that the man now confirmed to be A’s father had not previously been involved in her case, while the man who had previously been thought to be her father had been actively involved in her life on an ongoing basis. She said that the biological father had expressed support for the continued involvement of the other man with A.
The mother did not have legal representation but had recently reengaged with the social work department and had had access with the children. The mother’s mental health had improved and she had consistently expressed her wish for the children to remain in the care of their maternal aunt. While she had not engaged with the court process for either child, she had provided written consent for the long-term care orders on multiple occasions.
A’s biological father was also happy with the current placement and had also consented to the full care order to age 18 years for A. He had also previously consented to a full care order for B and this remained the case at the hearing.
The social worker told the court that she had spoken to the children’s mother about three weeks prior to the hearing and the mother had asked for physical access visits with the children to be reinstated. She had had consistent telephone access with the children prior to this. The social worker had arranged an access visit with the children at their home which had gone well. As a result, the social worker had put a revised access agreement in place. She said that the agreement was important as the children had been very disappointed in the past.
She said that the result of the DNA test had come as a huge shock to the biological father. A’s birth certificate had been amended with the full cooperation of all the parties. The biological father was also consenting to the care order for A. He wanted a relationship with the children but he was unable to care for them.
The other man, previously thought to be A’s father, was continuing to see the girl. He remained committed to her. The social worker had invited him to the most recent child-in-care review for A but he had not attended. However, she said that this had been understandable as the review had been just days after A had been informed of the DNA results.
She said that it was a credit to A’s biological father that he had supporting the continued involvement of the man in the girl’s life. He had not yet had access with her, but the social worker said that he would be offered contact when he was ready taking into account her best interests. She said that he also had had a lot of struggles but that both he and the mother were being supported by the social work team.
A therapeutic proposal, informed by the therapeutic team, had been commenced to help A understand and adjust to the new situation. She was continuing to receive play therapy and support was also being provided to her foster carers.
The social worker told the court that both children were thriving in their placement. A did not have significant needs, but B had complex care needs. All of their needs were being met to a very high standard by their maternal aunt and her husband. B was attending all of his appointments. Both parents were content with the level of care the children were receiving. The social worker’s only concern was that the mother would be consistent in attending her access visits with the children.
The father’s solicitor told the court that the father had long been involved in B’s care. He had not been in the best of form in recent times but this had been improving. The solicitor confirmed that the father would continue to work with the social work team regarding access with A.
The GAL supported the CFA’s applications for full care orders for both children. He said that B’s father had not been expecting to be told that he was the father of A. At the time of the hearing, it had only been two or three weeks since he had been informed. The GAL said that he was a very kind and caring person, “a fantastic Dad”. He would like to have involvement with A, but that he had just not been able at the moment. He said that the father and the other man had never been friends but he had been able to put this aside to allow the other man remain involved in A’s life.
The GAL said that great care had been taken in giving the girl the new information. There had been lots of play therapy and the therapeutic team had considered every outcome. A child-friendly booklet explaining the DNA test was produced for her. She had been devastated by the information.
The GAL said that A could be quite guarded. He had been relieved that she had actually been upset at the news as this had been the proper response. Her foster carer had also been a superb support to her. A was still seeing the social care worker and the play therapist. It had been traumatic for her to lose who she had thought of as her biological father, but he thought she was young enough to cope, “children cope with complex families.” In addition, he expected that the relationship between A and the man previously thought to be her father would continue.
The GAL told the court that this case highlighted the need to confirm children’s paternity early on. He recommended that DNA testing be conducted earlier in care proceedings to avoid similar situations arising in the future.
The GAL said that B was also doing well in his placement. He attended a special school that catered to his needs and there was very good communication between the school and the foster carers. He had exhibited some disturbing behavioural patterns, for example, he had recently begun head-banging again and his toilet training had not been linear. However, he adored his foster carers and he had a close bond with his sister, whom the GAL described as his “lioness”. The GAL noted that access between B and his mother had commenced again recently.
The GAL suggested to the judge that there be a six-month review of the children’s care orders to monitor A’s emotional wellbeing following the recent developments, in case she was in need of any further services.
The judge commended all parties for their cooperation, particularly A’s biological father, for prioritising the children’s needs and supporting the continued involvement of the man who had until recently thought he was the girl’s father.
The judge granted full care orders for both children until the age of 18 years, with a review scheduled in six months’ time. He directed that the GAL remain appointed until that review and that access arrangements were to remain at the discretion of the CFA.