The District Court directed the Child and Family Agency (CFA) to give LH a clear written aftercare plan before LH turns 18, including steps to address accommodation in the area of LH’s education and training centre. The court refused to order a designated aftercare worker or guarantee a particular placement or funding.
In a judgment dated 31 July 2014, the court said LH, who was born in August 1996, had come into the CFA’s voluntary care in November 2013 after a period as an inpatient at a children’s hospital. LH had been placed in a specialist unit and was receiving weekly psychiatric care. The judgment records that the current placement was not suitable for an adult.
LH told the court of concern about becoming homeless after turning 18 and a wish to remain near the education and training centre, where LH hoped to begin a two-year Leaving Certificate Applied course in September 2014. LH said support would be needed to find private rented accommodation and access services. The CFA social worker’s evidence was that the agency had assessed LH’s individual needs and proposed aftercare assistance, including four weeks’ funding for the current placement after care ended, help seeking supported social housing, assistance with transfer to adult mental health services, and help with social welfare entitlements and rent allowance.
The court said section 47 of the Child Care Act 1991 allowed directions about a child’s welfare only while that person remained a child. It also said the CFA had to assess aftercare needs individually under section 45, but the agency retained discretion over whether to provide assistance and how to allocate resources. The judge found LH did not meet the National Policy’s stated 12-month care criterion, but said that criterion had no clear legislative basis and could not be used to exclude a child from an individual assessment.
The written plan must explain the CFA’s commitments in language LH can understand, include a contingency plan and list support services and contact details. It must address accommodation needs and plan for housing in LH’s preferred area, taking account of education and access to support. The court stressed that these directions require the plan to describe steps towards suitable accommodation; they do not guarantee that accommodation will be secured.
The court also directed the CFA to make a funding application if a gap arises between the end of the four-week placement extension and securing other accommodation or assistance with rent. That is an order to seek funding, not to provide it; the CFA must decide the application in light of LH’s needs, available resources and its priorities. The application for a designated aftercare worker was refused. Instead, the existing social worker was to continue supporting LH for as long as considered appropriate, subject to LH’s consent and cooperation after turning 18.