Cap. 569 Art. 28Reviews.

(1) The first review of the care plan shall take place before the Board not later than four months from the date of the child protection order, and any subsequent reviews shall take place at least once every six months: Provided that the key social worker or guardian of the child, as the case may be, may apply to the Board to review the case before the expiration of the six month period on the grounds that the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm in the placement or as a result of the care plan. In either case, the Board shall appoint the application for hearing not later than five days from the filing of the application and shall, after hearing all parties concerned, give its decision on the application with urgency.

(2) The key social worker shall, during the first review present to the Review Board a concurrent plan for the child. The said plan shall simultaneously define the requirements which the parents need to satisfy, for the purposes of reintegration or reunification of the child with such parents, and establish an alternative permanency plan: Provided that the key social worker shall make all reasonable efforts to reintegrate or reunify the child with the parents, subject always to the best interests of the child.

(3) The Review Board shall, on the day appointed for every other subsequent review, hear the parents of the child, the key social worker, the alternative carer and, where applicable, the guardian, to determine whether progress is, or is not, being made in accordance with the care plan: Provided that the Review Board may, whenever it deems it in the best interests of the child so to do, or whenever the child expresses his wish to be heard by the Review Board, hear such child and, for this purpose, may also appoint an alternative date, time or place, which is different from such date, time or place that is appointed for the review.

(4) The Board may also consult with such professionals, or other persons, as it may deem appropriate. For such purpose, the Board may invite any such professional or other person to attend meetings of the Board.

(5) Where the Review Board determines that sufficient progress has been made, justifying the revocation of a child protection order, it shall make a recommendation to the court to that effect for a final was presented to the Review Board by the key social worker, the said Board shall proceed to determine whether there are or not any reasonable prospects for reintegration or reunification of the child with his parents. In the first case the Review Board shall continue with the periodical reviews, subject to any variations to the care plan, which it deems necessary in the circumstances of the case and, in the second case, the Review Board may recommend to the court that the alternative permanency plan should have effect:

Provided that the Review Board may recommend to the court that the alternative permanency plan should have effect at any time during which the child is under a care order in all cases where this is considered in the best interests of the child so to do: Provided further that where it is in the best interests of the child that the alternative permanency plan has effect immediately upon the making of the orders mentioned in the preceding proviso, the recommendation to that effect shall be made by the Director.

(7) Before delivering its final decision, the court shall hear the views of any person, which it deems relevant, and in particular the views of the child, if considered to have sufficient understanding.

(8) The key social worker, the parents of the child, or where applicable, the guardian, may, within seven working days from the Review Board's decision that no sufficient progress has been made, which justifies a recommendation to the court for the revocation of an order, apply to the Court of Magistrates for it to review the decision of the said Board:

Provided that, without prejudice to any other sanction arising from the provisions of this or any other law, where the application for such revision is evidently frivolous or vexatious, it shall be lawful for the Court of Magistrates to condemn the applicant besides to the payment of costs, to the penalty of not less than two hundred and fifty euro (€250) but not exceeding two thousand and five hundred euro (€2,500): Provided further that where the Court of Magistrates confirms that no sufficient grounds exist for the revocation of a child protection order, any subsequent application for a review of the decision of the Review Board shall only be allowed after the lapse of twelve months from the day on which such determination is made: Provided further that no application or further applications shall be entertained by the Court of Magistrates following a decree that an alternative permanency plan is in the best interests of the child.