A judge in a rural town carried out a review in relation to a full care order which had been made for three children, two boys and a girl. The father was not present or represented in court, the mother was not present but was represented by her solicitor.
The allocated social worker gave evidence that all three children were doing well in stable care placements, but they all needed various forms of therapeutic intervention. The two boys received regular respite care.
She said the children’s father had recently informed the two older children (A) and (B) that he was getting married and moving away. She said this news had been broken to the two older children in a completely inappropriate manner and had caused them considerable upset. The social worker told the court that the social work team had then intervened to prevent the father from informing the youngest child (C) of the news without a member of the social work team or the guardian ad litem (GAL) being present. The social worker said that they had intervened and informed the youngest child C of the news themselves in a carefully managed way.
The social worker told the court that the oldest child (A) was a teenager who was very socially awkward and suffered from social anxiety, in addition to suffering from a physical medical condition. She said that A was very resistant to any intervention in relation to his physical or mental health.
The court heard that the father was refusing to provide the Child and Family Agency (CFA) with his phone number and was insisting on contacting the children directly, away from the supervision of the CFA. The social work team were concerned about the children being made aware of the father’s online presence as he was regularly posting videos showing off his lifestyle on social media.
The court heard that the children A and B lived together in a relative foster care placement. The foster carer had been told to intervene where possible to try and prevent the children from having unsupervised direct contact with their father. The social worker gave evidence that the father had refused to give the foster carer his number, and there were concerns about him having contact with the children directly and without supervision. She said that the youngest child was very protective of her relationship with her father and was in contact with him by phone directly herself.
The solicitor for the CFA asked the court to make a direction that there should be no contact between the father and the children save for with the consent of the social work department.
The social worker said that Child B was doing well academically but was struggling socially and his circle of friends had dwindled significantly. She said he was somewhat more open to attending counselling and other therapeutic services than Child A. She said he could be stubborn and there were some issues where he pushed back a lot from his foster carer. The foster carer was well supported on how to manage these issues with B.
The social worker said that Child B had ADHD and he continued to engage with the Child and Adolescence Mental Health Services (CAMHS), who had increased his medication after receiving feedback from his foster carer. The judge asked who had made the clinical decision and on what basis. The social worker said that she was not sure who made the decision and that the boy was reviewed every six weeks by CAMHS. The judge requested an updated report or more specific information from CAMHS in relation to this change to B’s medication.
Judge: “How is sibling access going?”
Social worker: “Sibling access took place in June and again in August. It worked well and usually involved the children doing a physical activity with something to eat after it. It is planned to have sibling access again around Christmas time.”
The social worker said that Child C was in a residential placement which was working well and it was likely that this would be her long-term care setting. She said the child had thrived since she moved there. She had received a diagnosis of autism last August and was now availing of extra supports in school.
Child C was very unsettled after she learned that her father was moving away. She idolised her father and had turned against her mother. The social worker said that this was possibly a result of conversations she had with her father about her mother. Social worker: “None of the children were able to make the connection between their unsettled behaviour and their anger at their father moving away.”
The mother’s solicitor said that the mother was a constant in the children’s lives and she had three hours unsupervised access with the children every week. The social worker said that the mother was doing everything she could for the children, and she would be given extra access with them around holiday time.
The social worker said that the mother’s access would be kept under review, but it was going well so far, apart from with Child C who had decided that she didn’t want arranged contact with her mother for now. C had had a lot of contact with her mother after her aunt died recently but she reacted very negatively if there was any mention or arranged access with her mother. The mother was handling this situation very carefully and appropriately.
The social worker gave evidence that Child C still attended respite care with her previous short term foster carers which she greatly enjoyed and she would be going there for Christmas.
GAL’s solicitor: “What will happen if the father returns over Christmas as the children will not have seen him for a number of months?”
Judge: “The father’s access will be at the discretion of the CFA and should only be at the discretion of the CFA. The court has not been silent on access in this case. This should be made very clear to the respite and foster carers that access is only at the discretion of the CFA. If there is a fear that access will take place the CFA need to intervene, and the parameters need to be set out.
“The CFA will need to be more proactive in relation to managing the access if the fear is that he will try and arrange access with them directly over Christmas, as the bombshell has changed the dynamic of the relationship with the three children and their father.”
The matter was listed again in two months’ time to allow CAMHS update the court in relation to Child B’s medication and for an update in relation to each of the three children’s access with their father.