A court has ordered that a little boy, 4, may receive medical treatment from specialists because the child is suffering from medical ailments, apparently as a result of in-utero drug exposure.
The child is currently in temporary foster care, but his biological mother urgently turned to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, to obtain an order that only she, or a court, may decide on his medical treatment and medication.
She also asked that a curator be appointed to make decisions on behalf of the child and that his medical needs not be in the hands of his caregivers.
One of her concerns is that his specialists are exposing him to harsh medication.
Following his birth from his drug-addicted mother, the child has been identified with special medical needs.
His caregivers, who have applied to become foster parents, are currently addressing his medical needs, with a paediatrician, at the helm.
In her written submissions to the court, the biological mother asked that no medical decisions be taken by the respondents (the caregivers) in the absence of her written consent.
She gave birth to the child while she was placed in a rehabilitation centre for the use of methamphetamines. Before being admitted to the clinic, while she was pregnant with the child, the mother exposed him to narcotics in utero.
She admitted to exposing him to drugs at the “beginning" of her pregnancy. She places this exposure at the first six weeks of her pregnancy, while the social workers place the exposure up to three months into her pregnancy.
While the duration of exposure to drugs in utero may be in dispute, the exposure itself is not disputed.
Five weeks after the boy’s birth, a paediatrician reported that the child has “problems with being inconsolable, especially in the early evening hours when he presents with severe crying episodes, clenching fists and arching over backwards”.
These crying spells last for up to five hours, the court was told, and have been diagnosed as symptoms consistent with drug withdrawal. Medication was prescribed to assist him through these difficult times.
The mother is concerned that he was prescribed Valium before a visit she had with him, as well as with the other medication prescribed.
She also believes that the caregivers are breaching their duties as carers by allowing the boy to receive this medication.
The mother was admitted to the rehabilitation clinic as an alternative to a criminal sanction for the theft of a motor vehicle.
At about the same time, her mother had obtained a protection order against her. The basis of the protection order was that she had threatened her mother. In addition, the applicant's family feared the extent of her drug abuse.
Before his birth, the child’s biological grandparents asked a social worker to put the newborn in temporary safe care.
This was motivated by the mother’s use of crystal methamphetamine. In addition, the applicant's first child had also been removed from her care.
The mother spent 17 months in the rehabilitation centre, but after her discharge, she once again tested positive for methamphetamines.
In the meantime, the child was regularly seen by specialists, who, among others, recommended extensive occupational and psychological therapy. The mother meanwhile made all kinds of demands on the experts treating the child.
She also visited the boy under the supervision of a social worker, but the child did not respond well to these visits. Valium was prescribed to calm him down during these visits. After one of the visits, he had to be hospitalised due to the emotional trauma.
One of his doctors insisted that the visits be halted, stating that putting the child through these visits amounted to child abuse. The Children’s Court subsequently prohibited these visits from continuing.
The court concluded that the child was in good hands with his medical team and that the caregivers, in terms of the Children’s Act, did not need permission from the mother to make medical decisions which are in the best interests of the little boy.