The Eastern Health Board cannot "wave a magic wand" to find a suitable place for a 16-year-old out-of-control boy who suffers from post traumatic stress disorder, attention deficit disorder and conduct disorder and comes from a highly dysfunctional and chaotic family, the High Court was told yesterday.
The position of the EHB was that until a new High Support Unit at Ballydowd, near Lucan, opens around April 2000, it was unlikely the board would have a premises suitable for the boy's needs, said Mr Patrick MacEntee SC, for the board.
The boy, who has no convictions, is being held in St Patrick's Institution after it emerged last week that he was abusing heroin and was not co-operating with a hostel arrangement put in place by the EHB.
After exchanges yesterday between Mr Justice Kelly, Mr MacEntee and Mr Gerard Durcan SC, for the boy, the matter was adjourned to tomorrow so the court could hear the suggestions of social workers.
Mr Justice Kelly said that if the boy was not in a secure place, he could be dead within 24 hours. It was a near-certainty that outside a secure regime he would go back to the "death dealers" for more heroin.
The judge made the comments after seeking the board's view on the better of the only two options available for the boy, keeping him in St Patrick's or returning him to his parents, who say they cannot control him.
Mr Robert Templeton, director of the EHB Children's and Family Programme, said that neither of its units at Killinarden or Newtown House was suitable. The board was recruiting staff for a step-down facility and another facility which would provide 12 beds. The latter would not be suitable for children with high support needs.
Pressed by Mr Durcan, for the boy, on where he should go now, Mr Templeton said the child was not suitable for the high support units or for his hostel.
Mr Durcan said the court was entitled to be told by the board where it thought he should go.
Mr MacEntee said the board could not wave a magic wand and bring facilities into existence. It would have none that were adequate to this child's needs until early next year.
With all the goodwill in the world, it had nothing to offer the boy in the foreseeable future. It would require careful planning and no cobbled-together arrangement would work.
The board was conscious of the shortcomings of the situation, but these were the result of past events, which had left the board furiously trying to catch up through no fault of its own.
Mr Durcan said he was not interested in any philosophical argument on what should have been done in the past. The EHB had statutory responsibility for these children and the least the court should have, in making a decision as crucial as this, was the benefit of its wisdom. The judge said the board should be able to indicate what option was best for the boy.
He stressed the fault was not with those working with such children on the ground who had to operate in a system "which is in tatters". But he as judge had to make an immediate decision.
He agreed the board had tried various unsuccessful options, including putting social workers into the boy's home. The judge said the boy may be wilful or bad, or may have an illness preventing him from co-operating. Given his family background it would be difficult to think he was not disturbed. Mr MacEntee accepted that the board owed the court some further assistance on how to deal with the boy, and the hearing was adjourned to tomorrow.
