Former foster care is carer and Committee for young woman in wardship – 2022vol2#56

In early 2022 a young woman of 18, (A), who was living with her former foster carer, was admitted into wardship on orders of the High Court. The court had heard that A had come into care at the age of nine and her medical needs were very high. She had a diagnosis of Autistic Syndrome Disorder [ASD], a moderate learning difficulty and a medical condition. Her carer [her former foster carer] supported her with all aspects of daily living.

The judge gave a short ruling in relation to what was before him, noting that A’s carer had been appointed as her Committee. The affidavit sworn by the aftercare worker from the Child and Family Agency (CFA) advised that the young woman who was now 19, had a close attachment to her carer, and viewed her as her parent. A would not be able to live in the community and required care with all aspects of daily living. In October she would transition to an adult day care service over a period of two weeks. Transport to that service was to be provided five days a week.

Her adult case worker had been appointed as guardian ad litem (GAL) and had visited her three times in 2022. The GAL had reported that the young woman always presented well and had enjoyed two trips outside of the jurisdiction over the summer. She received respite care and had access with her birth mother and sibling, although there had been issues with her mother’s attendance. The aftercare worker was providing a high level of support to the placement.

The judge noted that A’s carer was providing a high level of care and making “clear grounded decisions within the role as Committee, I want to congratulate her on the standard of care she is providing to [A], enriching her quality of life.” He stated that there were two issues to be resolved relating to the respite scheme and the day service. An independent social worker had already been appointed with a view to resolving the issues. If another application were necessary, then the HSE would be the applicant in that regard, no formal review was otherwise necessary. Liberty to apply was granted.