The District Court made full-duration care orders for two siblings aged 16 and 15, finding their health, development or welfare was likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected without court orders. The orders, made in September 2015 under section 18(1)(c) of the Child Care Act 1991, are to remain in place until each child turns 18.
The children had spent most of their lives in the voluntary care of the Child and Family Agency with their mother’s consent. Their father is deceased. The mother, whose interests were represented by a Guardian Ad Litem, consented to the care orders. The children’s Guardian Ad Litem told the court that both wanted to remain in their foster placements and continue seeing their mother.
The older child had lived in two foster placements and was settled in the second, regarding the family as a kinship group. The younger child, who has diagnoses including autism spectrum disorder, developmental coordination disorder and dyslexia, had lived with foster carers since infancy. The siblings have a good relationship and see their mother regularly.
The mother asked under section 37 for more contact: fortnightly face-to-face visits and weekly telephone contact. The younger child did not want the arrangements changed; the older child was open to increased contact, subject to school and social commitments. The court declined to make a formal access order and directed that contact continue flexibly under arrangements agreed from time to time, taking account of the views and best interests of those involved.
The children’s Guardian raised concerns about the agency’s delay in seeking care orders, including the effect of waiting for parental consent for medical treatment, school trips and travel documents. The Guardian also described a period when the younger child’s foster carers lacked a fostering social worker. The judge said the court could not determine whether the agency had breached its statutory duties or committed maladministration; those issues would have to be addressed in another forum.
Under section 47, the court directed the agency to return the case if either child’s social work case or the foster carers’ link-worker support remained unallocated for three weeks, if care-planning regulations were not followed, or if either placement ended or the agency sought to change it. The agency must provide a written schedule for sibling contact by the end of October 2015, and draft aftercare plans for the older child by the end of May 2016 and the younger child by the end of February 2018. The children’s Guardian was to be reappointed to review those plans, with the case to return to court if a plan was considered deficient. The Guardian was discharged from the proceedings subject to that reappointment.
The judgment prohibits reporting or broadcasting material that could identify either child or any party to the proceedings.