There has been a significant drop in the proportion of at-risk children being considered by the High Court for a place in special care.
In the first nine months of this year, 30 children, aged between 11 and 17, were deemed by Tusla social workers to be at such risk they needed detention in special care for their own safety.
Their cases were referred to Tusla’s special care referrals committee (SCRC). The committee decides which children should be detained on foot of a High Court order. From January to September this year, the committee decided just 10 of these 30 referrals should go forward for High Court special care applications.
Last year, social workers made 36 referrals to the SCRC, 20 of which were approved to go before the High Court.
RM Block
The fall in cases of highly vulnerable children before the court comes at a time when the special care system is under intense pressure. There is currently a chronic shortage of places in these secure units.
The Irish Times has learned five separate sets of proceedings are under way against Tusla in respect of children for whom High Court special care orders were made but who have not secured access to a space. Some of these children are deemed “at risk of death”.
Currently, two children – one younger than 13 and another aged 16 – are subject to special care orders but cannot access a bed in any of the three centres. A total of 26 special care places exist, but only 15 are operational due to severe challenges recruiting and retaining special care workers.
Of the 30 referrals to the SCRC to the end of September, 17 were “deemed not suitable on first review” and one was withdrawn ”before being considered”, according to the data, released under Freedom of Information laws.
Of the 36 referrals last year, 15 were “deemed not suitable on first review” and one was withdrawn “before being considered”.
In both years, a small number of children initially deemed unsuitable for special care were accepted “upon receipt of further information”. This relates to two children last year and three to the end of September this year.
Among reasons for not putting children forward to the High Court for special care this year, the committee said “all community options had not yet been exhausted for the young person” in 14 cases. In another case, the committee said social workers should “continue to support the young person in the community”.
In the case of one young person, the committee stated there “had been a reduction in risk”, which meant they “did not meet the risk-based criteria” for special care.
The six-person SCRC, which includes senior social workers and special care managers, met 29 times last year and 21 times this year to the end of September.
A Tusla spokeswoman said: “The decision to approve a special care placement is based on whether the child’s needs meet the strict statutory threshold for special care.”
This threshold, she said, involves the child being at immediate risk of harm. Before a consideration for special care can be made, all less restrictive interventions must have been fully explored and exhausted.
“Not every referral will meet the high statutory threshold for special care,” the spokeswoman added. The approval rate therefore reflects the “rigorous assessment process” designed to ensure that special care is used “only where necessary and in the best interests of the child”.
“At all times, Tusla’s decision-making is guided by the child’s welfare, safety and best interests, balancing the need for protection with the importance of the least restrictive intervention. Special care is only used when it is the most appropriate and proportionate response to protect a child.”
