A judge in a rural court directed that a teenage girl (Child A) in care was not to be moved from a residential centre despite the staff having serious difficulties in meeting her needs. The staff at the centre had claimed that A was placed there without their having full information about her diagnosis.
During a review of the case the Child and Family Agency (CFA) social worker described the staff as lacking in training in how to manage A. They had redacted notes they provided to the CFA, saying that the reports needed to be checked by freedom of information so that names of staff were not included. The judge was critical of this procedure and directed that the report given to the centre prior to A’s admission be made available to all the parties. She stressed the need for court oversight in this matter and listed it for review three months later.
Asked by the CFA solicitor about A’s difficulties, the social worker told the court that A had been in the current residential placement for about five weeks. She displayed significant difficulties in settling there and there were concerns about her overall presentation. She was experiencing challenges unknown to her in previous placements. These included threats to abscond and suicidal ideation.
The social worker informed the judge that the current placement was not meeting A’s needs. She stated that there was a lack of training within the centre’s staff team. She said that A had difficulties with the manner in which they were communicating with her. The staff had indicated the previous week that they would work with the CFA social worker. Funding for one-to-one psychology had been approved and the occupational therapy was due to recommence. The social worker stressed that she intended to case manage this particular case going forward.
The social worker told the court that the residential centre staff had said that communications between them and the social worker would need to first go through freedom of information in case any staff member’s names were disclosed if there were complaints. Reports of any significant event notifications that occurred relating to A were also to follow the same checks through freedom of information.
When the judge heard this, she asked how much money this centre was receiving. The social worker replied that it was getting hundreds of thousands of euro. She remarked that that staff team seemed to be fearful. If A’s placement broke down, there was no other place available to her. She said her goal was to work with the staff team.
The social worker described A as being very confused by some actions of staff. She knew she was not allowed to bring her laptop to her room but the staff did nothing to stop her doing so. Despite knowing that A had a diagnosis of a moderate intellectual disability, the staff identified some of A’s language as being racist although this was not intentional racism on A’s part.
The centre’s staff were adamant that the information and reports provided to it when A was admitted were incorrect and that there were a lot of grey areas. The social worker said that all the professionals working with A agreed that her current presentation was not in line with her previous form.
The CFA lawyer asked about an upcoming meeting to be attended by the social worker and centre staff. The social worker said the aim of the meeting was to help the staff to identify A’s diagnosis and their need to understand her assessment and the reasons why she responded to staff in a certain way. She said the centre’s staff had no understanding of A’s trauma and how to deal with it.
The CFA lawyer asked about the progress of A’s education. The social worker replied that A had maintained consistent school attendance and that school staff would be attending the child-in-care review. It was important to find out if A’s presentation in school was similar to that in the centre.
The lawyer for A’s guardian ad litem (GAL) told the judge that A was in one of three terraced houses and that staff moved between the houses. She said that A had described some of the staff as being more responsive to her than others who she regarded as being cross. She also said that the behaviour of a resident in the adjoining house was waking her up early every day.
A lot of work had gone into the locating of this placement for A and it was worrying that problems had arisen so soon. The GAL’s lawyer stressed that it was a priority that A’s school placement was maintained. The social worker agreed and said that the school had been the one consistent element that A had. School was very important to A that it would be detrimental to her if the placement at the centre broke down and she lost her school place as a result.
The GAL’s lawyer said that current reports about A were not in line with the previous reports she had about her. The social worker pointed out that the centre staff thought that A had been placed with them without their having the correct information about her.
The judge said that it was incomprehensible that the centre staff maintained they were misled into accepting A and said this was just an effort by the provider to justify themselves. They were charging a very significant amount of money. The GAL’s lawyer reminded the judge that this centre had previously indicated that they would be able continue the care of A through her after-care period.
Judge: “I will be making a direction that [A] is not to be moved just because it is more difficult than they expected.”
The CFA lawyer asked the judge what was to be done about the redacted significant event notifications. The judge stated that there were to be no redactions made. The nature of the work of the staff at the centre was that it could sometimes be subject to complaints and it was no different for that centre’s staff to any other staff. The judge asked what documentation had been given to the centre as part of the referral procedure and the social worker replied that she had asked for this to be clarified.
The judge said that the commencement of this placement had to be delayed initially due to the need for registration to be completed for the centre with the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA). She asked why it was that the staff was now seeking to redact information when they had a statutory responsibility. The judge directed that the original referral pack of information that was made by the CFA to the centre prior to A’s admission was to be made available. A copy of this was also to be provided to A’s GAL. She directed that the notes from A’s residential centre be made available to the CFA and the GAL. She directed that A was not to be moved from this placement and she listed the case to be reviewed on a date three months later.