A teenage girl cannot be provided with a bed despite being ordered into special care by the High Court. The girl, who is in State care, has threatened staff with knives, set fire to her accommodation and is thought to be receiving payment for sex.
Mr Justice John Jordan, granting the order in the High Court on Thursday, said it was “once more a most extraordinary situation” where Tusla had come into court seeking a special care order “and at the same time is telling the court that a bed is not available for the child”.
Special care is the most secure form of care where children at serious risk may be detained for their own, or the community’s, safety. However, just 15 of 26 special care beds across three units are operational due to difficulties recruiting and retaining workers.
“This perennial staffing issue remains an obstacle to the court order, which it is necessary to obtain, being given effect,” Mr Justice Jordan said.
RM Block
“The rule of law applies across the board in this State . . . I expect a court order to be complied with. I want it to be complied with. It needs to be complied with in order to protect the life and safety, development and welfare of this . . . girl.”
The case was one of more than 15 before the court concerning the most at-risk children either in special care, recently discharged, or in need of it.
The court also heard of a young teenage boy who has experienced severe abuse and neglect who has been missing from special care for over a month.
Sarah McKechnie, barrister for Tusla, was applying for a fresh special care order for the boy. She said he had absconded while on a shopping trip. “Despite all efforts, including contact with An Garda Síochána, media alerts and contact with UK authorities”, he had “yet to be found”.
Special care orders last three months and can be extended for two further three-month periods, after which a fresh order must be obtained.
The boy contacted his social worker in recent days and said he would return if he could go to a different unit.
Alan Brady, barrister for the boy’s guardian ad litem – an independent person appointed by the court to give the child’s view – suggested the boy be allowed present at his preferred unit.
“At this point, there are no bad ideas to get [the boy] back into special care . . . the level of risk is so high [and] he is so young,” he said.
Granting a fresh order, the judge said the boy had been subjected to “physical abuse, domestic abuse, neglect, emotional abuse, and [there are] concerns about child sexual exploitation . . . He is a victim of significant traumas”.
Separately, a second three-month extension was granted in respect of a young teenage boy in special care since the spring. Ms McKechnie said he had “settled in well”, his health had improved and he had gained weight.
Mr Justice Jordan had met the boy. It was “immediately apparent” he would pass for a child many years younger than he was, he said.
“He had a good foster home placement but it broke down because of his behaviour,” he said. The boy had a “habit of consorting with [people involved in] criminal activities . . . he had no safe relationships [before coming into care] and was actively seeking out peer groups involved in criminal activity . . . in circumstances where he was repeatedly threatened and intimidated by those peer groups.
Granting the extension, the judge added: “He is a child who is vulnerable . . . involved in criminality himself, including assaultive behaviour and property damage.”
