A judge in a provincial city ordered three-month extensions to the care orders for a family of four to allow a father apply for accommodation with his local authority.
The care orders were for four children. The eldest, Child A, was a teenager, the other three, B, C and D were all of primary school age. Both parents had, separately, opposed the extension of the care orders for the children.
The children’s parents were separated and there were separate private family law proceedings ongoing. The father was attending services for alcohol addiction and anger management. He was also experiencing difficulties in obtaining accommodation for himself and his children. He had been on the housing list for about 20 years, but had not been deemed eligible for housing while his children remained in care. He wanted the children to stay with him, which would in turn enable him to get local authority housing.
This case had been before the court five weeks before when the existing care orders for all of the children had been extended for six weeks with the consent of both parents to allow these longer-term extension applications be heard. At the time of the hearings, the children had been split up and were in the care of different family members.
At the earlier hearing, the solicitor for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) told the court that the children’s father had engaged well with various therapies and treatment and that he had also engaged in unsupervised access with the children. He said that the only outstanding issue that had to be dealt with was his housing situation.
The father’s solicitor told the court that the father had been living with various different relations, but that an aunt had agreed to let him and some of his children stay with her. He said that the father had proposed that his younger daughter (B) would stay with her paternal uncle and the younger two would stay with him at his aunt’s house. The eldest, A, was staying with her mother and there were no plans in place for her.
At that hearing, the CFA’s solicitor told the court that the children’s mother was in the process of getting work done to improve the condition of her house. She too was suffering from addiction and mental health issues and had been attending her GP fortnightly. She had also been attending AA and NA meetings regularly. The mother wanted the children to be returned to live with her.
There were separate custody proceedings ongoing as well as a domestic violence case.
At this hearing, the CFA’s applications to the court were to extend the care orders in place for the three younger children for a further 12 months and extend the care order for the eldest child for a further three months.
The CFA’s solicitor told the court that the children’s mother was not present in court because her own father was in hospital receiving end-of-life care. He also said that the eldest child, A, was residing at home with her mother, without the CFA’s consent. The existing care orders for all of the children would remain valid for another nine days.
The social worker for the two older children told the court that the girls had been received into care about a year earlier for a number of reasons. These had included neglect in the home, very poor school attendance and that they had appeared to be hungry and dirty. The home was also in poor condition.
She said that not much had changed in respect of the home. The Council had recently bought the home and works to improve its condition had just started, but the work proper had not yet commenced. She said that the mother abused a variety of substances including cannabis, cocaine, benzodiazepine and other prescription drugs. She was in the 20th week of a treatment programme, but on initial assessment her urine had tested positive. She was also attending mental health services, but had missed many of these appointments.
The social worker told the judge that there had been no real change in her circumstances. The social worker had explained to the mother what she needed to do but while she was open to doing the work, she just had not done it.
She said that a number of services had been recommended to the children’s father. He was attending a drug rehabilitation centre every week for nearly a year and the reports regarding his progress were quite positive.
The CFA had had concerns about coercive control by the father in the home. The social worker had not seen much openness and honesty on the part of the father regarding this. He was attending counselling with a psychotherapist but he had not accepted any responsibility in this regard. He blamed the mother for everything. The social worker had explained to him that both he and the mother had been responsible for the family’s circumstances.
She said that the CFA’s interactions with the father had been difficult, but that they had improved slightly. Both parents attended a meeting with the social work team during the previous month. The father had been extremely heightened at this meeting. Although the parents were no longer in a relationship, the father had occasionally been residing at the family home. This had been very confusing for the eldest child in particular. She had also been experiencing a lot of difficulties and had a lot of work to do for herself.
She said that the father was engaged with the CFA, but he lacked any insight into his role in the family’s circumstances. The CFA was looking for a placement for A, who was living at home with her mother. However, there had been an allegation made against her of inappropriate sexual conduct with a younger child. The social worker did not know if there was any substance to this allegation. The CFA was seeking a residential placement for her, possibly a single placement. She said that as a result of the uncertainty around the care plan for A, the CFA was applying for a three-month extension only in respect of her care order.
She said that B was currently in a relative foster placement with her paternal uncle and aunt. She had settled in this placement well and while she was a bit behind academically, the social worker thought that this would be okay in time. However, the relative foster carers had an issue with their own daughter’s health. As a result, the CFA had identified another foster placement for B. She had met the new foster carers and had stayed with them and had really enjoyed it.
The social worker was of the opinion that B needed stability and time to settle at the new foster placement.
When questioned by the father’s solicitor, the social worker acknowledged that the father was taking part in the counselling and the other actions that had been recommended to him by the CFA. The solicitor said that the father’s counsellor had been satisfied that he was not actively engaged in drug use. The father had accepted that he had needed the CFA’s services but he believed that the difficulties with the children had been caused by the mother’s problems.
He had since removed himself from that circumstance and was effectively homeless as a result. The solicitor told the court that the father was staying in a B&B and he was now actively seeking housing for himself and the children. He said that while the father had been seeking to get onto the council’s housing list for 20 years, he had only been on the list officially since the previous year. He said that the father needed appropriate housing in order to take the children out of care. However, the council would not consider housing for him on his own while his children remained in care.
The father’s solicitor told the court that the father had also applied for the custody of his children. If there was a court order giving him custody of the children, the council would actively look at getting housing for him and his children.
The CFA’s solicitor said that the CFA was still looking to extend the care orders in respect of the children. It was not just an issue of housing. She acknowledged that the father was making an effort but said that the CFA was very concerned that the father did not have an insight as to his role in the family’s circumstances. However, she said that while the CFA continued to have concerns, if the father had accommodation, it would be prepared to look at reunification again. She also said that while the mother also wanted reunification with the children, she needed to do a lot of work first before this could be considered.
The social worker for the younger children told the court that they were in a relative foster placement with their cousin and they were thriving there. He said that Child D had no therapeutic needs at that time but that Child C had an outstanding assessment for ADHD.
Both boys had settled into school very well. The CFA hoped that the boys would continue to reside at their relative foster placement. The CFA was applying to the court for twelve-month extensions to the boys’ existing care orders.
When questioned by the father’s solicitor, the social worker said that the CFA was still looking at reunification of the children with their father. However, he continued to be concerned about the father’s insight as to why the children came into care.
He also acknowledged that the father required proper housing and that this would be part of a reunification plan. He agreed that the father was in a “catch 22” position; he could not progress his housing application while the children remained in care, but his chances for reunification with his children would improve if he had accommodation.
The father’s solicitor said that he was concerned that the young boys were confused as to their surname and were mixing it up with the surname of their foster carers. Both boys had also started to call their foster carers Mum and Dad for a period although it appeared that this had stopped now.
Council officials were present in court and they told the court their position was that if the court granted a short extension to the children’s care orders, the council would look at progressing the father’s application for accommodation.
The judge said that she was satisfied to extend the care orders for all of the children for a further three months. She did not wish to extend the care orders for the three younger children for longer than this to assist the children’s father in his efforts to obtain accommodation. She said that the short extension of the care orders would give him time to attend to other matters and that if he were granted custody of the children, this too would eventually help him with his accommodation application.
As a result, she granted extensions to each of the care orders for three months only. On the application of the CFA’s solicitor, and with the consent of both parents, she also granted the foster carers’ request to take the two boys on a family holiday later in the year.
The matter was listed to come before the court again three months later.