An interim care order was granted for two children, one of whom had urgent medical needs due to having ingested cocaine shortly before coming into care, leading to cardiac arrest and to the children being taken into voluntary care. The voluntary care arrangement was due to expire the following week. The younger child’s medical treatment required parental consent.
The parents were not in court and were not represented. The social worker said that the parents were on notice of the application and that the care plan was outlined in the social work report. The social worker said that the parents had tried to engage but that there was a history of drug abuse and domestic violence and that there had been no meaningful change. She said the parents had consented to voluntary care, however their contact was inconsistent.
The social work team leader was called to give evidence and she said that the children had been in the care of the CFA since late 2019. She gave evidence that there had been a serious medical incident which triggered the children being taken into care and since then one of the children in particular had long term health needs. The court heard that the child had suffered a cardiac arrest and had to be resuscitated and that cocaine had been found in the child’s system. The child had also been diagnosed with specific illnesses, and it was not known if these conditions were a result of the medical emergency which triggered the children being taken into care.
The court was told that the children were in two separate relative placements and that their needs went being met.
An update was provided to the court as to how both children were and the court was told that child A was thriving and was attending school and doing very well. Child B was not able to speak but was doing very well and was attending a special school and was taking the bus there. The court was told that the foster carers were very committed to the children. They were living with separate relatives.
The judge was satisfied to make the interim care order given the ongoing medical needs and the urgency of those needs. She appointed a GAL.
At a subsequent hearing the interim care order was extended. The CFA solicitor told the court that the parents’ whereabouts were unknown and that he was seeking an extension of the ICO in respect of the two children.
The court was told that the GAL was making preliminary inquiries into the case but that the general view was that the children required ongoing care and the CFA solicitor said he was seeking Section 18 dates due to the lack of parental engagement and the significant medical needs of child B. The GAL supported the application.
The court noted that the parents were not represented and were not engaged with the proceedings. The judge extended the ICO for 28 days and set Section 18 dates.