James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I know the Senator feels that what he is proposing is helpful but were it to be adopted, the amendment would require that aftercare plans would have to be prepared one year in advance of a child leaving the care of the State. A year in the life of a young person is an eternity from their point of view. As a parent, I know the difficulties that present in teenage years. Things that are important and of major significance one week are replaced by something else the following week. I am not being frivolous but we remember that advertisement where the teenage girl comes in, gives out about her friend and says that she is never going to speak to her again. The next day, she is talking to her dad and says she is going to the pictures with her. Her dad says, "I thought you were never talking to her again?" to which the girl replies, "Don't be stupid, that was yesterday". I am not being trite when I say that but we know that things, even very big things, change for children. Event occur that change their requirements and their circumstances change.

What is common to all young people in the care of the State or otherwise is the fact that issues that are of importance change and change frequently. This would include a young person's goals for an aftercare plan. Some children in the care of the State have a particularly chaotic and vulnerable history or come into care late. The idea of discussing options for when they leave care possibly just after a placement has been settled would be counter-productive in the extreme. In other words, it might be a case of them saying to themselves, "I am only in the place and they are already talking about getting rid of me". Even in placements that are settled, the commencement of aftercare planning too early can prove disruptive and unsettling. It must be handled with great sensitivity. For many children in long-term placements, having a discussion too early might give rise to fears that foster parents are looking for them to transition out and create worries and fears that are unfounded. Children may feel that they are only in the place and people are planning to get rid of them.

The provision as it stands was crafted in such a way as to enable best social work practice to decide when aftercare planning with the young person in question would take place. A "just in time" approach tailored to the individual with the safeguard of being no later than six months before the end of the care placement is seen as the appropriate response. For those who have been in care for some time, aftercare planning would form a natural extension of the care planning process. For those who have entered the care system late, the provision gives the flexibility to social work teams to determine the appropriate time to engage with the young person, albeit with the best interests of the young person to the fore.Accordingly, it was felt ensuring an aftercare plan was finalised six months before a young person left care was the best approach. While I understand what the Senator is seeking to achieve, nothing in the provision, as drafted, prevents the Child and Family Agency from agreeing an aftercare plan in advance of the deadline stipulated in the Bill, if that is the desire of the child. I see the potential for such arrangements in instances where the child is either in a long-term stable placement and anxious to have certainty about the possibility of remaining with the foster parents after he or she reaches 18 years of age or, alternatively, where it is clear that the child will not remain within a foster placement, for whatever reason, and may need assurance on what will happen next. However, we must have regard to that cohort of children in State care who, for whatever reason, are not yet in the frame of mind to discuss and contribute positively to the development of their aftercare plan. It is for these reasons that I do not propose to accept the amendment.