A judge of a provincial District Court adjourned an application allowing the court to order an independent lead clinical psychologist for the child in the case.
The lawyer representing the guardian ad litem (GAL) told the court that the child was 17 years of age and had been displaying disturbing behaviour and severe emotional distress, which presented difficulties for professionals managing his care. To reduce risks for the child, and for the people responsible for his day-to-day care, the GAL believed the team should have the lead support of a clinical psychologist. It was felt that the Treehouse Practice Project was well placed to provide this support.
The judge asked whether a particular professional had been identified, and the GAL confirmed that one had. The lawyer for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) asked that the section 47 application be adjourned on the basis that an initial meeting should first take place between CFA and the clinician.
The judge stated that they could not make an order without an initial meeting first taking place. The lawyer for the GAL outlined that the meeting with Treehouse Practice was the necessary first step in the process. Funding for the first meeting had been provided but long-term funding was needed in relation to the provision of clinical lead support, the court was told. If a clinical lead was to be recommended, the lawyer for the GAL asked whether the CFA would provide the funding, or whether other quotes would need to be obtained.
The judge stated that the question posed by the GAL might be putting the “cart before the horse”. The judge confirmed that the court did have power to make directions for the application but might not have those powers before the CFA investigated all issues. The judge commented that there were “loads of different decisions on this, and some of them are contradictory”. It was important firstly that the application was made for a clinical lead, or to identify what funding was needed, according to the judge.
The GAL said that this particular issue had been ongoing since May 2021. The judge responded that it might be the case that the “horse has already bolted”. The lawyer for the CFA highlighted that the child’s sibling was also a factor that the court should consider, and indicated that he was in a more stable situation than his brother. The CFA lawyer stated that the CFA did not shy away from providing supports to these children, and she felt there was no failing on behalf of agency in terms of assessment and therapy supports.
The judge stated there was no question that things had been done in the case, but the question was whether correct things had been done and done in time. He stated that the reality had to be accepted “that if everyone was ad idem we wouldn’t have to be here”. One of the biggest challenges for the CFA was identifying when the agency should intervene, according to the judge, but “unfortunately, because of failure of the State to give the agency sufficient person power, most social workers are in reactive mode. If you’re in reactive mode, you’re not looking for extra work”, the judge stated.
The judge said that cases are being missed, there was no question about that, and that if there were interventions at a certain stage in most cases it wouldn’t be necessary at a later stage. The judge felt that these were “issues beyond the foot soldiers of the [CFA]”, and that was just the sad reality. According to the judge, this situation was complicated by the absence of foster carers and further complicated by the failure of the state to fund this area for twenty years.
The judge noted that there was no agreement in principle to appoint someone a clinical lead. He pointed out that the appointment of a clinical lead had a greater chance of success if everyone was on board and to make sure barriers were not put up.
The lawyer for the CFA pointed out that the child was 17 years of age and would turn 18 later next year, that the child had a mild intellectual disability and was due for a further cognitive assessment that month.
The lawyer for the GAL informed the court that the residential placement facility for the child had no staff with therapeutic crisis intervention (TCI) training, and accordingly, no escalation skills available to them. The GAL indicated that there was now another young person placed with the child, and that that newly placed young person was at risk if this child took a dislike to him.
The judge pointed out that staff had limited ability under the law to deal with these situations. The GAL responded that at least with TCI trained staff there were some options available to them. After hearing this, the judge said it was necessary that the people responsible for the care needs of children have suitable qualifications and ability, and giving care responsibility to an untrained person could only point to negligence on behalf of the agency.
The CFA lawyer pointed out that this was not a finance issue, and rather a recruitment issue. The judge responded that it was about finance for prospective employees in that they required “decent pay, certainty in terms of employment and pensions”, according to the judge.
The judge adjourned the application to the following month to await the outcome of the first meeting with the proposed clinician and the CFA. At that time the application would be heard, along with the case of the child’s brother, who was also the subject of a care order.