A teenager in care referred to a plastic surgeon last February to have a scar assessed for removal will be waiting another six months before she is allocated a public appointment to see the specialist, the Dublin District Family Court heard yesterday.
In a review of the girl's case, Judge Colin Daly was told an appointment with a private consultant was available for her this month, but the Child and Family Agency had refused to fund the visit.
The teenager, who was taken into care with her siblings last year, is anxious to have the scar seen to before leaving the care of the agency when she turns 18.
The child’s court-appointed guardian said the scar was causing the girl unnecessary distress and an appointment for her was urgent. When she and her siblings were taken into care, they had “health, psychological and emotional issues” to deal with and the scar was “a glaring issue”. She recommended the private appointment be financed.
“The cost is €150, that is not too much,” the guardian said.
The guardian’s solicitor said the girl had expressed concerns about why services “didn’t come to her aid over the years”. He suggested the agency responsible for her might “make a gesture” given the history of her case.
The social worker said the GP who referred the girl to the specialist had not categorised her situation as urgent because of the length of time she had had the scar. She said she had spoken to senior management about funding a private appointment, but it was decided, since a public appointment would be given in six months and the teenager would have an aftercare worker to help her on leaving the care of the agency, the case should be dealt with in the public system.
Judge Daly noted that the girl wanted her scar dealt with urgently and that she would not be offered an appointment until six months time. He said he would make no further observations on the matter, but if an application was made to him on the issue, he would consider it.
The judge was also told that no long-term foster placement had been found for one of the girl’s siblings. The boy had had nine placements over the course of his year in care, the court heard, and he was “really expressing his frustration” with his situation, his guardian said.
Therapeutic services recommended for him had also been delayed because the agency did not want to set them up until they knew where his long-term placement would be.
The social worker said the agency’s foster team had not been able to identify a suitable foster carer from within their own system and had contacted private agencies to find a placement in July, but had so far not been successful. She said the boy’s current placement would run out next month but she could not say exactly when.
Judge Daly asked what would happen if no long-term placement had been found for the boy by the time the current placement ran out. The social worker said the situation changed on a daily basis and she would continue to seek a placement for the boy, but she did not have a plan B. “I will require a plan B on the next occasion,” the judge said.
He adjourned the case for two weeks and said if the boy was to stay in his current placement until the end of December, the agency should consider providing him with the therapies he needed while he was there.
