An Interim Care Order was extended by a District Court for a child whose mother was in custody. The mother was consenting to the extension of the Interim Care Order and favoured a family placement.
The social worker told the court that the child was “doing well, thriving at his current placement, and playing with other children.” He had frequent visits with his grandparents with whom he had a strong relationship.
The social worker said that she met with the mother in the prison and the mother was “teary about the situation” and she missed the child. The social worker said that she explained all the options to the mother regarding the child’s placement. The social work department met with various members of the child’s family. She said that two close relatives were willing to assist with the placement. The social worker explained that “they spend time with the child and the child’s brother indicated that he wanted to be involved with the child and spend time with him at the weekend.”
The child was residing with a foster family but it was envisaged that he would be moved to live with relatives shortly. There were concerns that these relatives would not be approved for the placement. The social worker explained that if this were the case, the CFA would have to “organise other options.” She said that the mother did not ask to have access with the child as she did not want to appear upset in front of the child and she acknowledged that she needed to “sort out her own situation first” before she saw the child. The mother was aware that she could not give the child the life he needed.
The GAL gave evidence and said that there was a potential for drift with regards to the changes of the child’s placement. There was a further concern that the relatives would not have the sufficient financial means to keep the child. The GAL said in the event that they were not approved, the CFA would support the child remaining with current carers.
The judge was satisfied to extend the Interim Care Order for 28 days.