Tusla is facing contempt of court proceedings after it failed to comply with a High Court order to find special care beds for two highly vulnerable children who remain “at large”.
In the action in their names, the children, through their mothers, are seeking a declaration that Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, is in contempt of the court’s orders.
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.
Two such orders were made in respect of the children in recent weeks by Mr Justice John Jordan.
READ MORE
However, neither order has been complied with as there are no beds available at any of the State’s three secure care units.
On Tuesday, Joe Jeffers SC, for one of the children, told Ms Justice Emily Egan there was a real urgency to the cases and he said the prime purpose of the proceedings was to secure compliance with the orders.
Mr Jeffers told the High Court these cases differed from similar proceedings against Tusla in that the children involved were at large and the agency had given no indication about when a special care bed might become available for them.
Opening recent correspondence from his side to Tusla, Mr Jeffers told the court that the minor he represented was “in extreme danger” and facing an “imminent risk to [their] life”.
The minor was in recent days arrested by gardaí for driving a vehicle that was not theirs and tested positive for cocaine, he said.
Mr Jeffers proposed hearing the action in modules and sought a date for hearing in December.
Alan Brady SC, for the other child, said he echoed Mr Jeffer’s comments about the urgency of the cases.
Seán Guerin SC, for Tusla, said the urgency and importance of the children’s cases – and childcare cases more generally – was “fully acknowledged” by Tusla.
Mr Guerin said his client would admit its noncompliance with Mr Justice Jordan’s orders and said this would not be an issue in the proceedings.
He said Tulsa apologised to the court “unreservedly” for the noncompliance.
Mr Guerin said the issue in these proceedings was whether a state agency which maintains it has made its best efforts to comply with court orders should be subject to a declaration of contempt.
It will be Tusla’s case that a declaration should not be made in those circumstances, he said.
Mr Guerin said the reasons for Tusla’s noncompliance were complex, multifactorial and longstanding.
He said these issues would have to be addressed in evidence at the hearing of the actions to allow the court to decide whether to make a declaration of contempt.
Mr Guerin said the mere fact of noncompliance was not a basis for such a declaration.
Ms Justice Egan said there was an urgent need to see if anything could be achieved before Christmas to bring about an improvement for the two minors.
In response, Mr Guerin said there was a limited number of places available in special care units.
He said that while there was a hope that one bed might become available in December, and another in January, this was dependent on the discharge of other children.
Other parties were represented at the case management hearing on Tuesday, including the HSE and other state organisations.
Ms Justice Egan said she would list the matter for hearing in December to allow the children’s side to present evidence relevant to the court’s decision on making a declaration of contempt.
Noting Tusla and the state parties’ submission that a December hearing was not realistic, the judge said that failing to bring the parties back to court before Christmas would amount to a failure to defend and vindicate the constitutional rights of the children.
The judge said she could not overstate the urgency in finding beds for the children and reducing the great risk they were exposed to by virtue of Tusla’s noncompliance.
