A judge in a District Court in a provincial city directed the CFA’s National Placement Team (NPT) to provide the court with its plan for a youth’s accommodation at the next hearing date. Failing that, he directed that the NPT have a representative in court at the next date, if necessary, by video link, to explain its plan for the youth.
The solicitor for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) told the court that the youth had been in a special care residential facility and was now in a stepdown facility in the south west of the country. It had not been anticipated that he would remain in the step-down facility long term. The step-down facility was due to relocate in six months’ time but there was nowhere to put him at the time.
The solicitor said that, as the reports of the social worker and the guardian ad litem (GAL) showed, the youth had gone from a period of chaos, which had resulted in him being brought before the juvenile courts, to a period of stability. He had put down roots in the location where he was residing. He had a girlfriend, which had had a positive effect on him socially. He had a good relationship with his new social worker and he was enrolled in an educational centre locally.
He was not attending the educational centre as often as the social work team would have liked and his time-keeping was poor but he was still attending. He was training in a local boxing club. The youth’s behaviour had improved. There had been no further criminal incidents and minimal outbursts and confrontations with staff. He was speaking quite positively about his circumstances.
He had stepped back from travelling to his home city where his mother still resided. His mother would have liked to see him more. However, his peers were also there and he had preferred to stay outside of their influence. The youth had had free time and unsupervised contact with his family – most recently during the previous weekend. He was confident, articulate and had been proactive in making representations and advocating for himself.
The solicitor said that the only issue was where the youth was going to reside in the future. The staff at his current facility were due to relocate to a new step-down facility in a different part of the country and there was uncertainty as to where the youth would reside. She said that the youth was settled in his current location and he was keen to stay there. He wanted to remain separate from his negatively-influencing peers.
He had shown signs of maturity over the previous six months and he had sustained relatively stable behaviours. There had been a placement offer for the youth in the midlands, which had not ultimately come to fruition, but the youth had not wanted to go there in any event. The solicitor told the judge that the CFA would need to come back to the court to provide greater clarity about where the youth was going to stay.
The solicitor for the GAL told the court that the boy had been three years in the current step-down facility even though normally only 12-month stays were allowed for transitions. She said that the youth was doing quite well, but that he needed a further residential placement. The solicitor said that there was a current standing direction of the court that the youth could not be moved without the court’s permission. The GAL had asked two months ago for a clear detailed plan to be provided. The NPT had been contacted to provide clarity regarding the youth’s future placement. However, there was still no clarity.
The judge agreed that the matter should come back before him in a month’s time so that the court could consider the plan for the youth’s future accommodation. He said that if the NPT failed to come up with a plan, then the NPT needed to explain to the court what its plans were.
He said that this youth was the youngest child to have been put in special care at 11 years of age. He had come a long way from that and he did not want to lose that progress. He directed the NPT to communicate through the CFA’s solicitor about their plan for the youth’s accommodation but failing that, the NPT was to be informed that it needed to be represented in court at the next date, if necessary by video-link, to explain the situation.
The matter was listed to return a month later.