A judge in a rural town reviewed the case of a boy in his late teens, (Child A), who was due to leave care in six months’ time. Despite the best efforts of all involved in his care, the Child and Family Agency (CFA) stated that A had secluded himself away in his bedroom, rarely willing to leave the room. He had been diagnosed with depersonalisation-derealisation disorder. [This disorder occurs when the person always or often feels that they are seeing themselves from outside their body or sense that things around them are not real. It often results from trauma.]
Concern was raised about the boy’s possible transition to adult mental health services. A further neurological assessment had been recommended and the judge fixed a further review in four months’ time to assess progress.
The CFA lawyer informed the court that A was due to reach his eighteenth birthday six months later. The social worker said she had been appointed as A’s social worker six months earlier. She confirmed that A had been in care for the previous 15 years. He was living with excellent foster carers, who treated him as a member of the family.
The social worker described A as a boy who spent all of his time in his bedroom, using electronic devices, except for meals and using the bathroom. He had become detached from all previous friends except for one. The CFA lawyer asked if the foster carers had made all reasonable efforts in this regard and the social worker replied that they had and that they would never stop trying to assist him.
The social worker said that A continued to be under the care of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and attended twice a month. She added that he had a lot of professionals in his network but was still finding it very difficult to engage with them or follow any set goals. The after-care worker had some success and the boy had engaged briefly with him and attended a gym.
When the social worker visited A, she insisted that he opened his bedroom door, stressing that it was her job to meet with him physically and check he was alright. He was reluctant to open the bedroom door and would prefer not to have to meet face-to-face but he did comply and had a very brief chat with her. She described this engagement as very challenging.
The social worker informed the judge that A had been assessed by CAMHS and was diagnosed with a condition known as depersonalisation-derealisation disorder. He had been prescribed medication for this and was now sleeping a little better. A neuropsychological assessment was also recommended for A and it was hoped that this assessment would help him to know how he could get on in the world. The current reality for A was that he was not attending any educational facility and was not engaged in employment.
The CFA lawyer asked whether A was engaged in any access with his maternal grandmother. The social worker replied that he had not sought to meet with his grandmother but that he was content for her to be kept updated on his progress. He mentioned that he would like to complete his driving test and that option would be explored.
The guardian ad litem (GAL) expressed her wish for A to be transferred from CAMHS to the adult mental health services. CAMHS feared that A would not be accepted onto the adult service. The judge asked the GAL if the concern of CAMHS was serious and the GAL said that it was her opinion that the neurological assessment over the next few months might be of assistance in getting A accepted by the adult service.
GAL: “He may fall through the cracks. [A] is just not ready to engage because of early trauma.”
The judge asked when the proposed assessment would take place and the CFA lawyer confirmed that funding had been made available but there was no appointment date as yet. The social worker advised the judge that, because A’s mother was deceased, a Section 47 application might be necessary to apply for the release and sharing of A’s neonatal records as it was likely they would be required by the professional carrying out the assessment. The CFA lawyer told the judge that they would raise this query with the professional.
The judge listed the matter for further review on a date four months later.