A judge in a provincial city granted the application of the Child and Family Agency (CFA) for a care order until age 18 years for a child of primary school age (Child A). Both of A’s parents were incarcerated and were not in a position to care for him. He was undergoing intensive therapeutic interventions and access was a particular cause of intense anxiety for him.
The child’s mother was present, having been brought to court from prison. The father was also present, having been brought from a prison in a different provincial city. Both parents were separately represented. The guardian ad litem (GAL) was present and was represented. The social worker told the judge that he had not met A as he had only been appointed as his social worker the previous week and he submitted a detailed report from A’s previous social worker.
The CFA solicitor informed the judge that this was an application for a care order for A until the age of 18. He said A had been in care for almost four years and the interim care order had been extended a number of times. He told the judge that a full care order to age 18 was the most appropriate order. Both parents were currently in prison and there was no suitable person available to take care of the boy.
The mother’s lawyer told the court that she consented to the application and that she had withdrawn her application for access with him. This was done with A’s best interests in mind as his mother was aware that he was being traumatised by access and she wanted to prioritise his interests. The social worker said that access was constantly reviewed and discussed and he welcomed the fact that A’s mother was prioritising her son’s needs. He said that A had settled well with his foster family, who had benefitted from the assistance of a social care consultant.
The mother’s lawyer requested regular updates about A every two months. The social worker replied that the video link with that prison had posed difficulties in the past but that he would see what could be arranged. The mother’s lawyer said grandparent access with A had been paused as A was undergoing intensive therapeutic work with a clinical psychologist. The social worker described the work being done with A. He had had an occupational therapy assessment and there were some deep-rooted issues to be explored. Following this, the boy was due to undertake appropriate story-work to help him understand his situation.
The father’s lawyer said that he was consenting to the application for the care order. He wanted to be assured that A would be told that his father wanted to know all about him. He also wanted to be able to give A presents from his grandfather. The social worker confirmed that he would accept any gifts for A.
The judge commended the GAL for the clarity of her report. The GAL confirmed that she supported the application for the care order to age 18. She said that A still experienced significant dysregulation, often triggered by access issues. The GAL recommended that regular inter-professional meetings should continue. She also recommended that A should have access with his sibling. She stressed the need for a review in six months’ time but the social worker stated that he planned to hold a review at the end of September after A had spent a month in school. The judge asked both parents if they wished to say anything and they declined to speak.
The judge said she had read and considered the various reports very carefully. In this case both parents were incarcerated and not in a position to care for A. His care and welfare could potentially be neglected should she not make the care order he was 18. She stressed that access between A and his sibling was important and that access with grandparents would be reviewed following therapeutic interventions.
The judge said that A’s physical, psychological and emotional needs were important. She stated that she was satisfied the threshold for the making of the care order until age 18 years was satisfied. The usual section 47 directions applied in this case.
The judge listed the case for review on a date four months later, with production orders for both parents to be made on the previous week.