A High Court judge yesterday said he has "a very big question mark" about the commitment of the Minister for Health and Children toward tackling the plight of the State's disturbed children.
"How long will the Minister keep rearranging deckchairs while the situation worsens?" Mr Justice Kelly asked. He refused to make an order - sought by the State and a health board - continuing the detention for at least another 12 months of a seriously disturbed 14-year-old boy, a victim of sexual abuse, in a State detention centre, a place all sides agree is not suitable to his needs.
The judge directed that a representative of the Department appear before him today.
These children could not vote and did not seem to be high on the Minister's agenda, he said. He was being constantly told something would be done and assured of "bleeding heart" intentions.
When the Minister was asked to do certain things, he "squirmed and wriggled" from his responsibilities, yet still asked the courts to believe he has a big commitment towards the children. Now the Minister was appealing to the Supreme Court a High Court order compelling him to provide, according to the Minister's own timescale, units for disturbed children.
The judge pointed out he had dealt with 19 children's cases last Monday, another on Tuesday and another yesterday, and would be dealing with at least a dozen others next Monday.
In the case before him yesterday, the judge said the Minister was asking him to continue to detain the child in the centre which was totally inappropriate, and would have to close down four of its 24 places to try to cater for the boy's special needs.
It was "beyond belief" that the Minister was asking him to approve this plan, the judge said, when he did not know the circumstances of other children seeking places in the centre who might be in an even worse position. The proposal was depriving four other children of their rights.
The boy has been in the State centre for several months now. Professionals agreed he needed to be in a secure centre for adolescents with appropriate therapeutic inputs, but no such facility exists in the State and there was no plan to provide one.
The boy's mother told an earlier hearing her son now regretted revealing he had been sexually abused - outside the family - because he had been taken away from his family some two years ago and still had not received the therapy he requires.
The boy is mildly mentally handicapped and has a history of fire-setting, described as a possible consequence of the abuse. He has been described as a real danger to himself and others.
The boy's case was reviewed by Mr Justice Kelly on June 30th last and he directed that the health board examine the possibility of placing the child in an appropriate centre in England. Yesterday, the judge heard there were problems in relation to the availability of suitable places in England, and also regarding referrals from this jurisdiction. It would also be several months before a referral might occur.
Counsel for the health board said it was anxious the boy should be able to maintain regular contact with his family. A plan had been devised which would see him remain at the State detention centre but receiving psychological, psychiatric, educational and other services.
The deputy director of the State centre said it was a unit for offenders and not therapeutic. It was not the best option for this child. The centre was willing to try to work the plan because the boy needed care, but it would involve a huge commitment from staff inside and outside.
Mr Eanna Molloy, for the State, said the option of UK places was examined and in light of the situation there, his clients felt it incumbent to come up with the next best alternative, a highly structured care plan.
The judge said he had heard evidence regarding the Minister's intentions to deal with disturbed children and had been told on several occasions what was to be done. Then he learned what he had been told would be done was not being done and a number of children had sought orders seeking places.
The Minister had refused to give undertakings that the measures would be implemented. The judge made orders directing the Minister to do what the Minister had said would be done, and now the Minister was appealing this.
The Minister was entitled to appeal but it raised a very big question mark over the Minister's real intentions.
