In a District Court in a provincial city the solicitor for the Child and Family Agency (CFA) applied to the court for care orders for five children, two boys and three girls, who ranged in ages from nine years to eight months, for a period of six months. At the time of the hearing, the children were subject to three-month interim care orders which were expiring that day. The children’s parents were consenting to the new short-term care orders. The parents were present in court and each was separately represented by a solicitor from the Legal Aid Board.
The CFA’s solicitor said that the children’s mother was awaiting a negative blood test before she would be accepted into a residential drug treatment unit. The children’s father had been very unwell during the preceding three or four months, including having a number of brain surgeries. He was not in a position to resume care of the children at that time and was therefore consenting to the six-month care orders for the children.
The social worker said that the CFA was seeking the six-month care orders for all the children to allow time for the parents to each address their respective issues. She said that the mother was reliant on various substance including cocaine, cannabis and benzodiazepine. However, she was engaging with services and intended to go into a residential treatment centre. She was awaiting a clear blood test before she would be accepted into the treatment centre.
The social worker said that access between the mother and the children was a very positive experience. The mother took advice very well and any suggestions made by the access worker to improve the access experience for the children were implemented by the mother at the next access. The children had a really strong connection with their mother. It was very loving and they wanted to go back to her.
She said that the father had had extremely poor health since the last court date. He had had three access visits with the children and another one was planned.
Both parents enjoyed the support of their respective families. The children were being cared for by a number of parents’ siblings in relative foster placements. The children had witnessed what had been going on in the family and therapeutic supports were in place for all of the children.
When asked by the judge why the CFA was looking for the care orders now, the social worker replied that the children and their development had suffered from the impacts of the drug use and domestic violence. The short-term care orders were to allow the parents get together. The children had witnessed what was going on. Therapeutic supports were now in place for all of the children.
The social worker said that a safety order had been granted against the father, but that there had been no further reports since. She had good communication with both parents and had given them advice. However, she did not have enough information regarding the father’s sobriety.
The mother’s solicitor told the court that the social worker’s report was very positive for the mother. However, she said there were a number of corrections and clarifications to the report. The mother had tested negative for both cannabis and cocaine, but not yet for benzodiazepine. In addition, she clarified that the mother had not yet provided the CFA with consent to the care orders being sought.
She said that consent was not being withheld, but that it had not yet happened as the CFA had only sought the mother’s consent on the Friday prior to the court date. She also clarified that the mother had stopped attending her weekly counselling sessions on the advice of the addiction services to allow her concentrate on attending the daily addiction services. However, it was expected that she would go back to counselling the following month.
The father’s solicitor told the court that the father had had a number of set-backs regarding his health which had restricted his ability to engage. Following discharge from hospital, he remained on strong antibiotics. The solicitor clarified that the father was not uncontactable it was rather a case that mobile phone coverage was poor and it was difficult to contact him. He said that email was more reliable means of contacting him. He said that the father was looking forward to having access with his children later that week and he had given the solicitor instructions that he wanted to improve the amount of his access with the children.
The judge said that the court had previously made three-month interim care orders in respect of the five children, which were due to expire that day. The CFA was now applying to the court for section 18 care orders for six months for all five children with the consent of both parents.
He had considered the evidence before him, and the application made including the grounding affidavit which had been sworn along with the updated social worker report. He was satisfied that the health, development and welfare of the children had been avoidably impacted and would continue to be impacted without the care orders being made. On that basis, he granted the care orders for each of the children for a period of six months. He said that he was satisfied that the CFA had informed and would continue to keep the parents informed of what was required by them to meet their mutual goal of reunification whenever that would be possible. He directed that access between the parents and the children would be at the discretion of the CFA.