A judge in a provincial court was concerned about the level of progress being made by the parents of two very young children, Child A and Child B, despite having already been subject to a supervision order where social workers visited the home regularly. Both children were on the autism spectrum, the mother had intellectual difficulties and the father suffered from a chronic illness.
The lawyer for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) made an application for a further 12-month supervision order. The judge asked why an application for full care orders was not advanced despite two further child protection referrals. The social workers and the guardian ad litem (GAL) described moderate progress which had been made and stressed the importance of exploring all avenues before applying for full State care for the children.
The shortage of placements for children with disabilities was mentioned but the judge said this would not influence her decision. She decided to grant a five-month supervision order with a review after two months.
Both parents were represented by lawyers and the father was present in court. The CFA lawyer told the judge that an application was being made for further supervision orders for the children. She said that the parents were consenting to the applications. She asked the social worker to outline what issues were going well for the family.
The social worker described the relationship between the parents and Barnardos as going reasonably well. The parents were engaging somewhat with the children’s disability network team (CDNT) and had now accepted the diagnosis that both children were on the autism spectrum. The condition of the children’s home was described as clean.
The lawyer for the CFA asked the social worker to outline what concerns she had about the family. The social worker replied that she still had serious concerns about the care needs and daily routines for the children. Extensive support had been offered through Barnardos but the parents had sometimes missed appointments and not taken the advice on board. The follow-through at home regarding routines, diet and eating times was not as it should be yet. The CFA lawyer said that Barnardos had indicated that if the parents did not follow through on the children’s routines, alternative care arrangements may be needed.
The mother had intellectual difficulties and a joint protocol meeting was planned for later in the month. Workshops in speech and language therapy were also planned for the parents to attend. The social worker said she had liaised with the special educational needs organiser for the area and had made applications to special schools and to mainstream schools with autism units, but that so far the children were on waiting lists for these.
The CFA lawyer asked about recent child protection referrals made about the children. A referral for A had been made by the Gardaí. When the mother was putting out the bin, A absconded from home and was found later at the other side of the city in a skateboard park and was brought home by Gardaí.
Another referral was made for both children by their school staff because of the deterioration in their physical presentation following the school holidays. The children appeared to have regressed during the holiday period and had toileting issues. The children’s father, who was a chronic illness, had been in hospital during the holidays and the mother had limited capacity.
The CFA lawyer asked about the children’s overall physical health. The social worker said A’s skin condition was not being well-managed and that B had dental problems and had been advised to reduce sugar in the diet. Both children had been prescribed iron and vitamin D supplements.
The social worker often found it difficult to gain entrance to the home as the parents did not always answer the phone. Sometimes the children had appeared clean but were often unkempt and it was clear they had issues with toileting while at home during the holiday period. The parents had worked on providing stimulation for the children apart from screen-time and they played with toys, had books and enjoyed playing in the fresh air.
The CFA lawyer asked what progress would be expected from the parents if the supervision order was granted. The social worker stated that full engagement with Barnardos and the CDNT was vital and all appointments should be attended. It was important that the parents implemented any skills they learned to improve the children’s routines.
Looking after their own health was also important for the parents. The father needed to be careful with his illness and the mother needed to look after her dental health as a priority. The mother should ask her GP to make a referral for her to the adult disability service. The children’s diet and mealtime routines needed attention and it was important the children attended school better and were on time. The social worker said that the CFA was trying to engage in-house support for the home so that a support worker might assist the mother to get the children ready on time for school each morning.
The mother’s lawyer told the court that the mother, who was not present, was consenting to the application for a supervision order. The father’s lawyer asked if the day for the Barnardos appointment could be changed to make things easier but the social worker disagreed as this had been facilitated previously without much success.
The judge summarised some of the issues raised. There had been two child protection referrals made, one by Gardaí and one by school staff. The children had missed 25 and 29 days of school respectively in the year and were often late. There were concerns some of their basic needs were not being met regarding toileting, skin ailment, dental health and hygiene. Supervision in the home was called into question when A had absconded and travelled to the other side of the city. The attendance and ongoing engagement with Barnardos were inconsistent. The judge asked the CFA if consideration had been given to the making of an application for a Section 18 full care order.
The social worker replied that there had been some progress made and there were still some avenues being explored. The joint protocol meeting was due shortly. The home help idea in the home was due to be tried. The social worker said that they would explore all avenues before applying for full State care.
The lawyer for the GAL asked the GAL to explain why she was supporting an application for a supervision order if progress was not being made. The GAL explained that she was trying to balance what was in the children’s best interests. She stressed that there had been some progress made but that it was the following up of strategies at home that was the struggle for the parents.
If a full Section 18 order was made, she believed that the children’s emotional and mental health would suffer. This was because it was unlikely that the children would be kept together. It was probable that they would be sent away from home to a different county and she was concerned about the huge turnover of staff. Both children had very complex needs but they had a relationship with their parents and were able to say when they were hungry. Private respite was being sought for the children and this would not be available to them in State care due to the current waiting lists. The GAL pointed out that there was a shortage of disability-suited placements for children in care.
The judge stated that she appreciated that there were very few placements for children but that was not something she had to take into consideration. She said she was more than satisfied that the threshold for the making of the supervision order had been reached in this case. She was concerned about the fact that A had absconded from the home.
The judge said that a 12-month supervision order may not be the most appropriate in the circumstances and that she was considering making a two-month order. The GAL’s lawyer said that the making of a 12-month order would not preclude the CFA from coming back to amend it. The CFA lawyer suggested a six-month order with a review after two months.
Subsequently, the judge made a five-month supervision order and listed the case for review on a date two months later.