A judge in a provincial court did not accede to an application made by the barrister for the mother of a teenage boy (Child A) to adjourn her judgment until the mother could give evidence. The judge ruled that the existing care order should be extended and the boy should remain in care as his human rights were being upheld there. This followed allegations of serious neglect when he lived at home.
A specific date had been specially fixed the previous month to allow all parties to give their evidence. However, the mother had slept late, missed the bus and did not attend. The judge decided that the mother had had her chance on the previous date and that to accede to an adjournment after the decision was already made would open the floodgates for other applicants.
The mother’s barrister told the judge that A’s mother had not attended on the date set aside for the hearing of the evidence of all parties as she had missed her bus. The barrister asked if the judgment could be adjourned until such time as the mother had an opportunity to give her evidence. She explained that A’s mother had sworn an affidavit saying she slept very badly on the night preceding the previous court date, had slept late the next morning and consequently missed her bus. The mother had moved house the following week and had not received her post until a month later.
The mother’s barrister pointed out that this was an inquisitorial court and that all information and facts should be explored. An adjournment would facilitate the mother to come and give evidence. The lawyer for the guardian ad litem (GAL) said that she had been present on the previous date as had the lawyer for the Child and Family Agency (CFA). Both parents had been offered an opportunity to come to court on that date. The GAL’s lawyer said the parents had an alarm clock like everyone else and that if the application for the adjournment was granted, it would open the floodgates for all other similar cases. The father’s lawyer conceded that the case had now been decided.
The judge stated that today’s date had been set aside to deliver judgment in the matter. She reminded everyone that she had commenced the hearing on the previous date at 9.58 a.m. and attempts were made to contact the parents, who had not come to court or sent any message. It was highly unusual that now, following the special hearing date and after the judgment had been decided, a request was being made to adjourn the judgment. Both parents had been legally represented. The judge agreed that acceding to this request would indeed open the floodgates for other applicants and she refused the application.
The judge explained that this was an application by the CFA to extend the care order until A reached the age of 18 years. The teenager, who had first been the subject of an emergency care order, already had had his care order extended in the past. The judge pointed to the evidence given on the previous court date by the forensic psychologist, via video link.
She had observed the access meetings between A and his mother on a number of occasions. The mother had had adverse childhood events herself but showed no understanding or empathy in her dealings with her children. The psychologist found A’s mother to be erratic and not open or honest. She created a delusional view of the world. It appeared that she wanted nurturing from her children rather than the other way around.
There had been a query about sexual abuse of the children but the mother was not able to do anything to protect them. A lot of what the mother said did not make sense and the psychologist’s conclusion was that the mother had no capacity to parent or to change. She said that reunification would not be a good idea at this time as it would take many years for the mother to change, even if she had been motivated to do so.
The psychologist had concluded that A’s mother had a weakened ability to recognise risk and had no empathy. She was narcissistic and allowed the children to take over situations. She was living completely in a fantasy world and was exploitative towards her children. She was relying on her children to parent her rather than being the parent herself and her daughter was in a leadership role in the household. The psychologist recommended that a full psychiatric assessment be carried out as it was likely the mother had a personality disorder.
The judge stated that a full day had been set aside the previous month so that the balance of the evidence could be heard from all parties. The legal representatives had all been present on the allocated date but there was no sign of either parent. The mother’s barrister had been expecting her to attend but the mother had been uncontactable by phone on that date. Contact had been made on the date with A’s father but he had indicated that he had not intended to attend.
The full hearing had gone ahead on the date. The social worker had given her evidence and described chronic neglect as A had still been wearing nappies at eight years of age and was wearing pull-ups in school. The child had not gone to any school until he was seven years old. The mother had been convicted under the Education and Welfare Act for A’s non-attendance at school. Supervision orders were granted to the CFA on two occasions and A’s father had been convicted for breaching a barring order.
The social worker said there had been no improvement and photographs of A’s home, where a large number of dogs lived, showed it to be filthy. The mother disputed the condition of the home but there was an overwhelming smell in the property. An emergency order was made for A, whose hair was matted and who showed very poor social skills. An assessment of A ruled out a diagnosis of autism. He was referred to the children’s disability network team. They did not accept his referral as they said his condition was caused by trauma and referred him to Jigsaw.
When A came into care, he first needed a lot of dental fillings. He also needed eye appointments. His human rights were being satisfied since he entered care. He saw the benefits of having boundaries set. He was currently attending education and was in a safe place. He even produced his own music. Access between A and his family happened once a week for an hour and a half. The clear evidence of the GAL in her report was that all A’s basic human rights were available to him since coming into care.
The judge said that she was satisfied that A’s needs could not be met unless he continued to remain in care. She said she had considered the list of matters to be considered when making a judgment about the child’s best interests. The judge added that she had read all of the evidence given in court by the legal practitioners and the forensic psychologist. She had also listened back to the court’s digital audio recording of the previous court date. The GAL had clearly expressed the voice of the child.
The judge said she had considered the necessity of the proportionality of the care order in line with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The result was that the application for a care order until age 18 for A was necessary and proportionate and she granted the order. The mother’s barrister asked if the mother could be given a copy of the judgment but the CFA lawyer objected to this on account of the in-camera rule. The judge decided that it would be more appropriate for the legal representative to go though the issues in the decision with A’s mother.