A teenage boy who allegedly witnessed a murder after falling in with a violent drug dealing Dublin gang urgently needs to be put into special care, the High Court heard.
Special care, which involves deprivation of liberty, would prevent him from associating with criminals who regularly visit him in the house where he lives with an elderly relative who is unable to supervise him, it is claimed.
It is also claimed he is involved in drug dealing from the relative’s home and was twice stopped in the company of a well-known criminal in his 40s.
The father of the boy, whose mother has addiction issues, wants his son to live with him but accepts the boy does not wish to do so.
Dublin schoolteacher claims she has been wrongly identified as ‘GAA catfish’ featured on 2 Johnnies podcast
Web Summit case: Paddy Cosgrave’s use of complaint against Daire Hickey ‘reprehensible’, court hears
‘I had a breakdown’: Dublin office worker accused of passing trade secrets to rival firm has destroyed phone, court hears
Donald Trump and Elon Musk won’t be able to go on ignoring the damage to the bottom line
He lives in a part of the relative’s home in which he has separate access and is regularly visited by “young people steeped in criminal activity”, the father says in an affidavit.
He is engaging in high-risk behaviour and was recently arrested in a stolen car travelling the wrong way on a motorway.
He has also been charged with theft and burglary and despite a court-imposed curfew as part of a deferred custodial sentence, he does not keep the curfew and “is rarely at home”, the father says.
The father says he understands his son witnessed a murder last November and is concerned about the psychological effect on him as well as the fact that he may be in danger due to his knowledge of the incident.
On Wednesday, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger granted the father’s lawyers, Joe Jeffers SC, with Brendan Hennessy, instructed by O’Neill Litigation Solicitors, leave to challenge a March 10th decision of a committee of Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, deeming the boy ineligible for special care.
The application was made on an ex-parte (only one side represented) basis and the judge said the case could come back on Friday.
Mr Jeffers said the rather unusual circumstances of this case was that similar proceedings were brought against Tusla six months ago which were settled earlier this month with Tusla agreeing to reconsider the application for special care.
The application was promptly considered afresh but refused on March 10th, he said.
In its decision, Tusla’s special-care referral committee said it was not satisfied that care other than special care – which entails a deprivation of liberty – would not address his risk-taking behaviour. He therefore did not meet the criteria for special-care intervention, the committee said.
It was the father’s case that Tusla had failed to properly consider and/or apply the statutory criteria as set out in the Child Care Act of 1991.
