'Someone will die': Judge warns of fatal risk as vulnerable teen waits for secure care place

High Court Reporter

A vulnerable minor is at risk of fatally harming herself or someone else if Tusla does not comply with a court order directing the agency to place her in secure care, the High Court has heard.

Tusla, the child and family agency, has not complied with the order due to a lack of available beds in the State’s three secure care units.

Highly troubled and vulnerable children aged 11 to 17 can be detained in a secure care unit, known as special care, on foot of a High Court order sought by Tusla.

The teenager is one of six children currently without a special care bed whose cases were reviewed by Judge John Jordan on Monday.

Just 15 of the State’s 26 special care beds are operating due to serious challenges faced by Tusla in recruiting and retaining special care staff. Seven staff are needed for each bed.

Donal Ó Muircheartaigh, barrister for the child’s court-appointed advocate, said the child’s circumstances had become “even worse” since the court was last apprised of her case.

Counsel said that the minor – who has made multiple suicide attempts – was found carrying a Stanley knife on her person recently. She is to face criminal charges over this under weapons and firearms legislation, the court heard.

Ó Muircheartaigh said that the child is reported to have made concerning statements recently, to the effect that “if she doesn’t kill herself, she will kill someone else”.

He said it was “very, very clear” that if she was not placed in secure care as soon as possible, there was a real risk that “someone… will die”.

The minor, “desperately, fervently” wants to be in secure care, counsel submitted.

The judge said he wanted the order directing the minor to be placed in secure care to be complied.

He echoed Ó Muircheartaigh’s submission: “Unless this child is placed immediately in special care in accordance with the special care order, there could well be… a fatality, or more than one.”

In the case of a teenager in secure care for over a year, the judge granted lawyers for Tusla a seven-week extension of the order detaining her.

Shane Costelloe, barrister for Tusla, appearing with Sarah McKechnie, sought the extension in circumstances where a step-down placement had been identified for the teenager.

Counsel said the placement was contingent on two other children leaving the placement, but added that Tusla didn’t envision this would cause difficulty.

With the current order set to expire this week, Costelloe sought the extension to allow for the transition to the ear-marked step-down placement.

Maeve Cox, barrister for the minor’s grandmother, said her client opposed the extension, in circumstances where she believed the detention in secure care was no longer benefiting her.

Counsel also argued that the statutory criteria for detaining a minor in special care were no longer met.

Alan Brady, for the teenager’s court-appointed advocate, said his client was not opposing the extension “with a heavy heart”, noting that his client’s position for months has been that a step-down placement is required.

The judge referred to a letter before the court outlining the minor's desire to move on from secure care.

He noted the minor's view that had she not been placed in a special emergency arrangement (SEA) after a prior stint in secure care, her current placement in secure care would not have been necessary.

“Things got really bad when I was in the SEA,” she said, according to the letter.

SEAs are privately provided placements in rented apartments, holiday lets, or hotel rooms, often utilised by Tusla to house children in its care. They are neither compliant with legislation nor inspected by the health watchdog Hiqa.

Ruling on the case, the judge stated that Tusla’s difficulty in finding appropriate placements for young people transitioning out of secure care was a “perennial” problem.

He noted that a placement had been identified, albeit dependent on the discharge of other minors from that facility.

The judge said he believed the teenager “has one chance” to transition out of secure care.

That transition needs to be carefully planned, and needs to occur at a relaxed pace – otherwise, her progress in secure care is likely to be “put at nought”, the judge said.

“The truth of the situation is that [the teenager] needs a slow and carefully planned transition to an appropriate placement. That is necessary in the interests of her welfare,” the judge said.

In those circumstances, the judge extended the secure care order for seven weeks.