A judge in a provincial court heard that an application for a supervision order had been considered by the Child and Family Agency (CFA) for a pre-school child, (Child A), but that once a placement for A had been found, this application was changed to an interim care order application (ICO). The parents, who opposed the ICO, were present in court and separately represented. The parents had consented to a supervision order.
The judge was surprised that a supervision order had been considered in light of the strength of the CFA report and because the parents had refused to open the door to the social worker. She decided that the threshold for the ICO was met and said that a supervision order would be inadequate.
The CFA lawyer informed the court that it was making an application for an interim care order (ICO) for a pre-school child. An application for a supervision order had been planned but since a placement had since become available for A, an interim care application was being made. The child’s parents were opposed to the application but had indicated their consent to a supervision order.
The CFA lawyer asked A’s social worker to give a summary of her assessment of the case. The social worker, who had been appointed to the child six months previously, stated that there were a number of serious concerns about the parenting of A. She said A was known to the CFA since he was five weeks old. A recent anonymous referral had described house parties during which A was left unsupervised. There were referrals due to drug and alcohol misuse, domestic violence, concerns about the mother’s mental health and preschool concerns about attendance.
The social worker said A had a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder and attended a special pre-school class with supports. There was concern that A had missed appointments with the children’s disability network team (CDNT). The CFA lawyer said that A’s mother and her partner had consented to a supervision order being put in place and asked what concerns there would be if this was granted. The social worker replied that the parents had previously refused to allow the CFA social worker to enter the home and had even stopped her seeing the child at the door. She described acrimony between the partner’s parents and A’s mother.
The social worker told the judge that A’s parents had planned a holiday with him overseas in the following month. If this holiday took place, it would deny A his placement at the July provision, which was very important for his development. There were also concerns about the possibility of domestic violence on a foreign holiday. When asked about the proposals for access in the event that the interim care order was granted, the social worker replied that it would probably have to be separate access time due to parental acrimony and it would also be supervised access.
The mother’s lawyer told the judge that A’s parents were in a good place and that there had been no recent episode of domestic violence. She said she had explained to the parents what a supervision order meant. She asked if there had been any recent refusals of entry by A’s mother. The lawyer said that once the supervision order was explained, A’s mother planned to cancel the holiday abroad.
The social worker pointed out that the mother had already missed a number of deadlines for application for admission to primary school. The lawyer stated that A’s mother would avail of July provision and respite and would work with the CFA staff. She said that all of these safeguards should ensure A remained safe. The lawyer said that A’s mother was willing to attend the addiction centre and undergo urine and hair follicle sampling to show she was serious.
The father’s lawyer said that he was open to attending the addiction centre and asked if the CFA would assist him with this. The social worker confirmed that assistance would be given. The lawyer remarked that the father had admitted there were some family difficulties but he denied that it amounted to domestic violence. When the lawyer said that A’s father denied the acrimony with his parents, the social worker replied that they had told her they were not on speaking terms with him. The lawyer said the father intended to put his name on the housing list and that he opposed the application for the interim care order but had said he would support a supervision order.
The mother told the court that that she had always allowed the social worker access to her home. When she was asked about A’s absences from preschool, she pointed out that he had grommets inserted under a general anaesthetic and was thus prone to picking up every infection going around. She stressed that she had booked the holiday abroad for July so that A would not miss any more days but that she planned to cancel it if a supervision order was granted.
She claimed that she did not drink alcohol and that she believed the holiday would be a good experience for A. She admitted that there had been domestic violence in the relationship but that she had allowed her partner to come back when he said he would attend addiction counselling for 12 sessions. She said she would collect her medication on a weekly basis going forward and would do anything to keep A with her. She indicated that she would work well with the CFA.
The mother’s lawyer asked her to explain to the judge why the court should not grant an interim care order. The mother explained that A, because of his diagnosis of ASD, was not able to communicate too well. He required skin-to-skin affection in order to settle and she recognised what each of his different cries meant. She said she was happy to agree to a supervision order. The father declined to give oral evidence and his lawyer said that he intended to work with the CFA.
The judge said that she had heard the evidence and what had been offered by A’s mother. She expressed that she was very surprised that a supervision order had been originally sought, based on the evidence in A’s report. She said she did not think that the organisation to help men overcome violent emotions was adequate for A’s father as he had denied that domestic violence had ever taken place. She stated that A was on the CFA list due to neglect and the fact that the parents’ relationship was volatile.
The judge stated that a supervision order was only being contemplated by the CFA in a situation where a placement was not available for A. She expressed surprise that a supervision order was being considered in a case where evidence was given that the parents had refused to open the door to the social worker. She remarked on the lack of understanding on A’s mother’s part of the dangers of substance abuse and was critical of her non-engagement with the CDNT.
The judge stressed the need for A to be cared for by an appropriate adult, especially considering his ASD diagnosis. She stated that the threshold for the granting of an interim care order had been met and that it was clear that a supervision order would not have been adequate. She appointed a guardian ad litem to act for A and she wished the parents well in the future.