A judge in a rural district court granted a six-month care order in respect of seven children from the same family, who were all under eleven years old. The seven siblings had been in the care of the Child and Family Agency (CFA) for the previous eight months. Both parents suffered addiction problems and while they had initially engaged with addiction services, they had difficulty following through on treatment plans.
The parents were separately represented. A guardian ad litem (GAL) represented the views of the children. The judge directed that the social worker should provide a list of steps which the parents should aim to follow.
The social worker told the court that the parents’ situation was unchanged since the children first came into care. The parents had acknowledged that addressing their addiction problems was vital and had given a commitment. However, they did not follow through on their plans and the mother had only completed three weeks of treatment when she discharged herself from the service. The social worker pointed out that the mother would be entitled to free addiction treatment if she engaged with outreach workers.
The CFA lawyer asked about access between the mother and the children and was told that access was “fairly consistent”. Five of the siblings were in the same placement and two others were with their paternal uncle. All the children were reported to have additional health and educational needs but the placements were stable. The placements were in the immediate local area, which meant the carers knew each other.
One sibling had characteristics of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) but engagement with the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) was difficult as it insisted that initially an educational psychologist should provide an assessment. A speech and language therapy assessment was also required. CAMHS had accepted the second sibling on their service and the third sibling was attending the primary care service.
The mother’s lawyer stated that the reason she had self-discharged from the addiction service was due to her deteriorating mental health difficulties. The mother understood that she needed to re-engage in the services and the lawyer asked the social worker if they would support her in this. The social worker stressed the importance of the mother engaging with the outreach service and completing the pre-treatment course.
The mother’s lawyer asked about access and described the mother’s concern that the access arrangements were somewhat “chaotic”. The social worker said they were prioritising the children’s needs around access and that they would be flexible about this as the timetable might need to be amended once the older siblings returned to school. When the mother’s lawyer enquired if a parental capacity assessment could be carried out, the social worker replied that the addiction treatment would have to be the first priority.
The father’s lawyer said he was using his best endeavours but that the previous number of months had been a little chaotic. The father appeared to find the court proceedings difficult and placed his head down on the bench in front of him for much of the time. The social worker said the children enjoyed the access time with their parents. When the lawyer asked what steps the father should take, the social worker stressed that he should engage with the addiction counsellor.
The lawyer for the GAL informed the judge that she supported the application for the care order.
The children’s father asked if he could give evidence and was invited to take the stand. He stated that he was originally from a different county and travelled between that location and his home. He insisted that he was continuously engaging with his counsellor and had spent an hour and a half on the phone with him during the previous fortnight. The father said he was free from all addictive drugs with the exception of cannabis. He told the judge that he was willing to provide urine tests to prove this. He added that he consented to the six-month care order. The judge said that the social worker should provide a written plan for the parents, outlining the steps that they needed to take.
The mother gave evidence but became very distraught. She insisted that the addiction course she engaged with had now been shortened to twelve weeks. She claimed that the service had helped her for three weeks but that when they saw a long scar of her arm, they told her she “would trigger the whole place”. The mother pointed out that she had gone to everything that she was supposed to go to.
Mother: “I’m doing everything I can to get my kids back.”
The mother said she had been clear of drugs for a four-month period. She expressed dissatisfaction with her social worker and asked if there was another available. She denied that she was in need of further addiction treatment at this time.
Mother: “I don’t need more treatment… I need my life back… I need my kids back”.
The mother’s lawyer asked her if she agreed that she needed a structured arrangement. The mother agreed but said that a year had now passed by and she had suffered the death of her own father. She assured the judge that she intended to commit to work on her addiction.
The judge said he had listened carefully to all of the evidence and had read all the reports. He was satisfied that the threshold for a Section 18 care order for a six-month period was reached. He stressed that the parents should be given clear steps to take to work towards reunification. He directed that the CFA should come back to court if the children were to be unallocated to a social worker or if there was any planned change of placement. The judge listed the matter for review on a date four months later.