A District Court judge in a provincial city re-entered a care order application for a pre-teen child who had been taken into care as a result of inappropriate behaviours with his siblings. A number of placements had broken down and he was now in a children’s hospital as a social admission. The judge listed the matter for further updates over the following weeks.
The solicitor for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) told the court that it was a very difficult situation. The young boy, who was a pre-teenager, had been received into care approximately seven months earlier. He had come into care as a result of inappropriate behaviours with his siblings.
The solicitor said that the young boy had had to be moved several times during the previous seven months and the CFA had not been able to get staff to work with him. He had become very disruptive over the previous weekend at the most recent residential unit and he had cut himself while getting out of a window trying to escape the unit. The boy had been taken to hospital for treatment of his cut, but the management of the residential unit refused to take him back.
The solicitor said that, at that time, the boy was being cared for by private agency staff in a private room in a children’s ward at the hospital. He said that the hospital had accepted the boy as a social admission. He had staff with him at all times. His movements within the hospital had not been restricted, but he had a security guard with him when he moved around the hospital.
The solicitor said that the boy had been about to be expelled from his school. However, he was attending classes at the hospital. The boy had been diagnosed with ADHD. The solicitor said that therapeutic services were ready for the boy, but those services could not be provided while he was in an unstable situation. His mother had weekly access visits with the boy and had visited him while he was in the children’s ward.
The boy required a single, or at most dual, occupancy residential placement to be sourced.
The solicitor told the court that the boy’s guardian ad litem (GAL) had been in the process of preparing a report ahead of a planned review of the boy’s care order. However, with the emerging circumstances over the weekend, it had become necessary to re-enter the matter before the review.
The GAL asked the judge to keep the case under weekly review. He said that the boy urgently needed a placement. He said that there was every chance that the boy could reach his full potential in time but because he was in such an unstable situation, no therapies could start. He said “he’s been warehoused.”
The GAL said that he was meeting with the boy regularly. The boy understood that he was not in the correct placement. He said that the residential staff had been ill-equipped to manage the boy: “He controls the staff, not the other way around.” But therapeutic services could not start for the boy until a placement had been found.
The CFA’s solicitor told the court that the CFA was doing all it could. The National Placement Team was looking nationwide for a suitable single/dual occupancy residential placement but nothing was available at that time. He said that if nothing could be found, a bespoke placement would have to be considered.
The judge put the matter in for further update the following week.
When it came back before the court the solicitor for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) told the judge that, at that time, the boy remained in hospital.
The social worker said that the boy, who was a pre-teenager, had been a social admission at the hospital for just over two weeks. Care staff were with the boy at the hospital at all times including two close contact personnel. The boy’s behaviour had been very dysregulated and he had been harmful to himself and others. She said that the CFA were very concerned for the boy and had made all of the necessary referrals on his behalf.
She said that as an interim measure a residential placement had been found for the boy and he was due to be moved in two days’ time. She said that the staff at the interim placement were not known to the boy and it was planned that he would be moved to the placement with his current close contact personnel. She said that the role of the close contact personnel was to protect the boy and other staff members.
There was a teacher on site at the new placement that would help from an educational point of view. This placement was a short-term measure to provide the boy with stability while the CFA looked for a more appropriate placement. She said that the CFA were looking for a residential placement with sole or dual occupancy. She said that the boy’s therapeutic programme could not be implemented until he was in a stable placement.
The solicitor for the boy’s mother asked the social worker what needed to be done to get the boy a placement via the National Placement Team.
The social worker responded that the National Placement Team were making every effort and that the boy had priority, but that there were 241 children on the National Placement Team’s wait list.
The solicitor asked the social worker what more needed to be done for the CFA to build a bespoke placement for the boy. The social worker said that she did not have the authority to answer that question at that time. She said that bespoke placements had been arranged for children previously but that it was entirely the responsibility of the National Placement Team and lay firmly within the decision-making of higher management structures within the CFA. She said that organising a bespoke placement would require contacting private providers, procuring a suitable property, and putting the appropriate staffing in place.
The solicitor for the boy’s guardian ad litem (GAL) told the court that the boy had had four special emergency placements to date – this was his fourth special emergency placement. He said that there was no dispute that the boy needed to be in a sole or dual occupancy residential unit. He asked the judge to direct the CFA to tell the court the following week, how long the boy would have to stay in the current interim placement before a private bespoke arrangement would be considered by the CFA.
He said that a bespoke arrangement for the boy had previously been considered by the National Placement Team. However, six months on, he remained without a suitable placement. He reminded the court that none of the boy’s therapies could start without a stable placement, and this would have long term consequences for the boy.
He asked the judge to direct the CFA to give firm answers on the time line at the next hearing in a week’s time.
The solicitor for the CFA responded that he would certainly ask the question, but he said that there was a crisis in placements and even if a bespoke arrangement were to be approved, procurement policies and staffing arrangements meant that it could not be done quickly. He said that the social work team would continue to advance the matter with the National Placement Team. He also told the court that the boy’s interim placement would have knock-on impacts in providing respite care for other cases.
The judge said that he had no further comment to make and put the matter in for further update the following week.
When it came back before the court the judge was told the Child and Family Agency (CFA) had moved the boy to a temporary placement six days previously.
The solicitor for the CFA told the court that, while it had been planned to have a close contact person remain with the boy in the temporary placement, it had been decided that this was no longer necessary as the boy’s behaviours had improved and the staff at the temporary placement were very experienced.
He said that the National Placement Team (NPT) were continuing to look for a suitable placement for the boy. The NPT had contacted 24 private providers across the country and one dual occupancy option in the midlands had emerged. However, there was an older child staying there already and an assessment would be required.
The solicitor for the boy’s guardian ad litem (GAL) told the court that the GAL was looking for an in-person review of the boy’s case. He said that the GAL had been told that there have been some behavioural issues reported at the boy’s temporary placement and he wanted the case to be reviewed regularly by the court.
The judge agreed to this request and listed the case for further review in two and half weeks’ time.