After being told that the only offer from a health board for a seriously-at-risk boy was a "totally unsuitable" bed in a Salvation Army hostel for the homeless, a High Court judge yesterday directed a full hearing of the boy's action for orders directing the board to provide appropriate care for him.
The South-Western Area Health Board (SWAHB), in whose care the boy has been for some years, was in "flagrant breach" of its statutory duty towards the boy and that breach had led to the present "disastrous and entirely foreseeable" situation, Mr Justice Murphy was told.
"There is a risk of catastrophe if something is not done to meet his needs," Mr Mark de Blacam SC, for the boy, said.
The boy, who has lost two siblings to heroin and whose alcoholic parents are said to be unable to function as parents, is said to be very unstable, showing suicidal ideation, and to have returned to using drugs. He was also said to be engaged in bare-knuckle fights for money.
His case against the SWAHB has been before the court on many occasions, but has never gone to full hearing.
Mr Justice Murphy was yesterday told that a residential unit where the boy had made progress in tackling his heroin addiction had been closed down in recent weeks and the only alternative being offered by the board was a totally unsuitable place in a Salvation Army hostel.
During the hearing, the 17-year-old boy was in court. When counsel for the health board said it had done everything possible for him, he repeatedly shook his head and said: "It's always the same."
He told the judge: "You don't really know what's happening with the health board and what they're really doing to me."
Outlining the case, Mr de Blacam said that, contrary to what had been indicated by the board to the court last month, it had emerged, following the closure of the unit where he had been making progress and had begun tackling his drug-addiction, there was no firm offer of a place in another unit for the boy.
A psychiatrist who had assessed the boy had recommended that he should continue in the unit, where he had made progress, and he [the psychiatrist\] had urged that it remain open.
The psychiatrist had said he believed this unit was the best option for the boy and, reading between the lines of reports, the board's own social workers held the same view.
However, on April 14th last the boy's court-appointed guardian learned that the unit had been closed, and the boy was discharged and told he could access overnight accommodation in places deemed unsuitable.
At a case conference on April 14th, the boy had appeared actively suicidal, and the psychiatrist had considered measures under the Mental Treatment Act, but had not pursued those.
Mr Justice Murphy said he was concerned that the board's recommendation was that the boy should access the Salvation Army hostel services. He directed a full hearing of the case on May 13th.
