The District Court in a provincial city heard that three children were all doing well in their placements and no orders were required to be given by the judge, who was hearing a review of their care order.
The solicitor for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) told the court that he was not certain whether the mother continued to have legal representation. She had been represented by the Legal Aid Board the previous year when the application for the care orders had been made but it did not appear that she was represented at the current review. The solicitor for the Legal Aid Board who had previously represented the mother confirmed that he did not have a current file for the mother.
The CFA’s solicitor said that a one-year care order for the three children had been granted the previous year. At that time, the mother had agreed to engage with ABC training to help her with her lifestyle and addiction issues, but that had not happened. The mother had been in prison for a number of months and had been released only two months before. Since then, the mother had remained chaotic in her lifestyle, she was of no fixed abode and was staying with friends who were themselves accessing homeless services. When the social worker had met her recently she felt that the mother had been under the influence of alcohol.
The three children comprised A, who was late primary school age, B who was one year younger and C who was a toddler. All of the children were in foster placements.
The older A was in a foster placement with two other foster children. At the time, she was continuing to attend her school. However, the travel to her school was stressful as it was located at the other side of the city to her foster placement. Her brother B was attending the same school. The school’s excellent trauma-informed approach to schooling was suiting them both. The solicitor said that there may need to be a discussion as to the long term viability of A’s placement in light of the long commute, although the foster carer was also looking at moving to a larger home to accommodate their larger family numbers.
Both A and B had had a very poor record of school attendance prior to coming into care, so they were both lagging behind their peers. Girl A could become dysregulated, but she was engaging well with the Children’s Intervention and Prevention Pathways (CHIPPS) Programme which supports children in care who have had traumatic childhood experiences.
Work was also being done with the children and their foster carers to help them understand their experiences. A had had a previous Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) assessment but a diagnosis had not been confirmed. It was planned that A would be reassessed in the future when she was more settled in her foster placement.
B was in a relative foster placement. His foster carer was taking two buses to ensure he got to his school each day.
The solicitor said that a new service had just commenced in the CFA which was to provide transport supports where necessary. A referral in respect of B had been accepted that month and his transport support was due to commence shortly. The solicitor emphasised that any consideration of moving the children’s school would have to take into account their need for the school to have adopted a trauma-informed lens, something that was currently operating and was working for the children at their current school. The children had previously had a lot of absenteeism and were behind their peers but that work was ongoing to address this.
B was also attending CHIPPS with his sister. While he spoke proudly of his sister, A did not think B was her brother. The solicitor thought that it would be necessary in the future to support the sibling relationship.
The toddler, C, was doing well in his placement. He was developing language and was very settled. He was benefiting from the stability in his foster placement. Access with his siblings had been arranged.
The solicitor said that the current care orders were in place for a further four months and he anticipated that the matter would be returning to court at that time to extend the care orders for a further period of time.
The solicitor for the children’s guardian ad litem (GAL) said that the GAL had met the children and found them to be bright and engaging. They were all moving forward positively and were being very well supported by their respective carers. He said that the mother had been released from prison, but had since relapsed.
She had requested access, but the GAL had recommended that any future access be introduced slowly as the children had been traumatised while in her care. He was satisfied that the two older children were continuing to get assistance through the CHIPPS Programme, which was progressing well.
The judge noted that no orders were required at the time and said that access should continue to be at the discretion of the CFA.