A multimillion euro purpose-built unit for disturbed children has only four children in residence and cannot take more because of a moratorium on childcare staff recruitment and a national shortage of residential childcare workers, it was claimed at the High Court yesterday.
Because of the lack of staff, an extremely disturbed 13-year-old boy remains in a separate institution, the secure unit at Ballydowd.
Legal action is being taken on behalf of the boy to his continued detention at Ballydowd. He had been there for 18 months, despite a consensus among social workers that he should be placed in the Northern Area Health Board's 24-bed Crannóg Nua unit at Portrane, Co Dublin, the court heard.
Mr Gerard Durcan SC, for the boy, argued that the court has no power to authorise the indefinite detention of a child in a secure unit such as Ballydowd merely because an appropriate unit is not available.
Ms Anne Wall, director of Crannóg Nua, agreed with Mr Durcan that her unit could take more children if it had the resources to cater for them.
Mr Justice Kearns told Mr Aongus Ó Brolcháin SC, for the NAHB, to return to court today with details of the resources and funding available to Crannóg Nua, and adjourned the case until then. The judge issued the direction after hearing evidence from Ms Wall about the situation at Crannóg Nua.
She said it was a purpose-built, high-support, 24-bed unit run by the NAHB, providing a regional service for the NAHB and the other health boards in the eastern region, the South Western and East Coast Area health boards.
Because the unit had insufficient staff, it was only catering for four children but hoped to take in a fifth in July.
Ms Wall said there was a moratorium on recruiting staff to the service and she was unable to say when that would be lifted.
She said the boy had been considered for admission to Crannóg Nua but the unit took the view on that occasion that his level of behaviour since November/ December last was not sufficiently stable.
There were concerns about his ability to take the step down from a secure unit to a high-support unit.
She said the unit would be prepared to consider an emergency application for his admission but the reality was a fifth child had been accepted for admission, probably in July, and it had insufficient staff to cater for any more. She agreed with Mr Durcan that a large portion of the unit was not being operated because of lack of resources.
Even if there were qualified staff available, there was a moratorium on recruitment.
The boy has been in care since the age of five and has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and may also have an attachment disorder, the latter arising from an inability to trust adults.
He has no criminal convictions but is facing criminal charges arising from activities he allegedly engaged in during one of a number of periods when he had absconded from Ballydowd.
It was alleged that, when aged 12, he was under the influence of alcohol and in a stolen car and also that he had assaulted an elderly man.
Last November, the High Court directed that the boy be moved from Ballydowd for a short period to a State remand centre because staff at Ballydowd were unable to deal with him.
At that hearing, the court was told the boy had had periods of doing well at Ballydowd but had also engaged in violent behaviour and was allegedly involved in a number of serious incidents, including one where he threatened a staff member with an electric carving knife.
Yesterday, Mr Durcan said that, apart from three weeks in the remand centre, the boy had been in Ballydowd for the past 20 months. The boy was not benefiting from this and his court-appointed guardian believed his deteriorating behaviour was due to his frustration at not being moved on.
Counsel said he was seeking a declaration that the detention was unlawful. He was arguing that there was no power for civil detention of a child under Irish law. If such power existed, which he denied, it could only sanction such detention for a short period and could not sanction detention in an inappropriate unit merely because an appropriate unit was not available.
If there was any argument that Ballydowd had been suitable for the boy at some stage, there was no such argument now and there was a consensus among all the parties that the boy should be moved, counsel added.
Mr Ó Brolcháin stressed that although the boy was locked in at night, he was brought outside the unit on a variety of trips of his selection during the day. He was also doing well at school work.
The board's priority was to find a safe and appropriate place for him and, ideally, would like to see him placed in Crannóg Nua. It was making every effort to have him moved.
The case resumes today.
