A teenage girl with limited capacity was choosing to “live on the streets with man she ... identifies as her romantic partner”, the High Court heard on Thursday.
The girl, who has been in special care – the most secure form of care where the High Court may order a child in crisis be detained for their own safety – was now in a follow-on placement, but was not staying there, Mr Justice Jordan heard.
Her situation was “not positive”, Sarah McKechnie, for Tusla, said.
The girl had been hospitalised in recent days for a drug overdose and “despite every effort by staff” in her placement “to provide support she is struggling to accept that support”.
RM Block
David Leahy, for the guardian ad litem, an independent person appointed by the court to the child’s voice, said a “detailed report” on the girl’s situation was “chilling”.
Though a placement was available, “her incapacious choice is instead to live on the streets with man she is now associating with, whom she identifies as her romantic partner”.
She was sometimes “minding her aunt’s children”. As she could not look after herself, “the risk in which those children are placed” means they have been “made a subject of a [Tusla] referral”.
The “systemic issue” was her lack of capacity, Mr Leahy said.
She was approaching her 18th birthday and would need a trusted co-decision maker to assist her in adulthood with making choices, under the Assisted Decision-Making Act.
As there was “manifestly” no one “suitable” in her life to be her co-decision maker she would need one appointed by the Decision Support Service. This had to be applied for, Mr Leahy said.
“Unfortunately ... the view of [Tusla is] they have no role in bringing an application like that,” he said.
“It needs to be resolved in [the girl’s] case, but this isn’t an isolated case. The court is going to be facing this problem in ageing-out case after ageing-out case” where young people had capacity issues.
Listing the case for July 24th, the judge said it “has to be sorted out”.
He expected to hear “some protocol has been agreed between [Tusla] and the HSE”, as to which one should apply for co-decision makers for “this cohort of children”.
Separately, a 16-year-old boy who recently left special care after a long period was “refusing” to stay in his follow-on placement. He was selling drugs, “staying with friends” and sleeping rough.
“The situation is not what we want,” Ms McKechnie said. “Obviously it is quite concerning considering how long he spent in special care. He is reacting to that, expressing anger about that.”
Mr Justice Jordan said it was “very disappointing” he had “gone back to his old ways after all the time and attention he has received from those involved in supporting him in special care”.
“I do wonder if any useful purpose can be served keeping the matter on the list. However, I will ... because it might be that doing so will help [the boy],” he said and listed the matter for July 31st.
In another case, the court heard a 16-year-old boy “at risk of death” due to being targeted by drug-dealers to whom he owes €1,000 remained “very frustrated” at being admitted recently to special care.
The boy said shots fired at his father’s home, wounding another child, were a “case of mistaken identity”, the court heard.
Gardaí, however, said the boy was “the target” and provided a statement signed by the boy in his father’s presence, in which he said he owed money for drugs.
It was “obvious he needs special care,” said the judge, listing the case for July 24th.
