A teenage girl deemed to be not mentally ill but to have a range of disorders has been made a ward of court because she is considered to be a risk to herself and others.
The Health Services Executive applied for wardship because it considered it was not appropriate to seek to continue the girl’s compulsory detention under the Mental Health Acts (MHA) but also believed voluntary detention was inappropriate for safety reasons.
Arising from her behaviour, including several assaults of care staff, the girl had been detained for some months under Section 25 of the MHA.
At the time the Section 25 order was made, there were concerns about psychotic symptoms as the girl was assaulting people and had expressed a desire to harm others, Paul Brady BL, for the HSE, outlined. There were also concerns about her own safety.
During her detention, her assaultive behaviour continued and she has been restrained more than 30 times.
Her responses to the assaults include having no memory of them, denying them and expressing an urge to hurt someone, the court heard.
A range of expert assessments have since concluded, while she has a range of disorders, she is not suffering from a mental disorder.
Because the Section 25 order was due to expire this week, the HSE went to the High Court seeking wardship.
The girl’s parents were in court and supported wardship but, through their counsel Brian Barrington BL, stressed they wished to remain actively involved in the girl’s care.
Mr Barrington said this was “a sad day” for them but they were aware they have a child who is very unwell and who had caused enormous risks to herself and others. They agreed a voluntary regime was not appropriate and that psychiatrists considered their daughter does not meet the definition of mental disorder.
In his ruling, the president of the High Court Mr Justice Peter Kelly said it was “probably a cause of wonderment” to the parents, despite exhibiting such behaviour, their daughter cannot be compulsorily detained under the MHA.
He was “frequently faced” with situations where psychiatrists say behaviour is extraordinary and violent but does not meet the definition of mentally ill as described in the legislation.
In this case, the evidence satisfied him, with a view to providing protection, the girl should be made a ward of court.
He was satisfied it was necessary, for her safety and welfare, she should be detained under a High Court order operating outside the MHA.
He was also satisfied to continue various orders for detention of the girl in a particular care unit and permitting the administration of such medication, treatment and restraint as was considered necessary in her best interests.
It was a sad day for the girl’s parents because her medical problems are such that the court’s assistance was required to try and deal with them in an effective way, he said.
Because the girl is a minor, the court’s jurisdiction was being invoked via a minor summons to take her into wardship and the parents consented to that, he noted.
The parents also consented to the appointment of Patricia Hickey, general solicitor for wards of court, as guardian to represent their daughter’s interests. This would not diminish the parents’ role and they “will be consulted in every respect”, the judge stressed.
