Issues surrounding accommodation for a teenager in care, who lost his placement due to a fire, amounted to a "Mexican stand-off", a judge at the Dublin District Family Court has said.
Judge Brendan Toale said it struck him as odd that one of the Child and Family Agency's residential units, less suitable for the boy's needs, could accept him without the need for a forensic risk assessment, while another, more suitable for the boy, could not accommodate him without one.
The boy, in care for more than five years, lost his care home after a fire last month, allegedly set by another of the residents, the court was told.
He was placed in bed and breakfast accommodation with his care workers for one night before being moved to an agency residential unit. However, he did not wish to be in that location and has been going missing.
The court was told a residential unit sourced for him, where he could transition from State care to after care once he turned 18, was initially dependent on his obtaining an educational placement. He went for an interview for an educational placement, and was offered one. But after the fire, the residential unit said a forensic risk assessment was needed before he could be considered.
Fire setting
His social worker said this assessment, to be carried out by a psychologist, would identify if the teenager posed any risk of fire setting. Though he did not set the fire, there were suggestions he may have encouraged the perpetrator.
The social worker also said the timing of the assessment was complicated by a Garda investigation into the fire and she did not know when a psychologist would be available.
The boy had suffered a “huge loss” and was “really struggling”, she said, and was coping by “walking the streets at night”.
The boy’s court-appointed guardian said the boy had been deeply traumatised before he came into care. He suffered physical and emotional abuse and neglect and had complex needs. Once taken into care, he was moved from one foster home to another, before being placed in the residential home; the only place he felt “safe, secure stability, in so far as he’s able to do so”, the guardian said.
She said losing that home had traumatised the teenager again. And it seemed like “the goal posts were moving” in respect of the new placement.
“The days are ticking by and one day can seem like an eternity to a young person,” she said.
Judge Toale said the teenager was missing more nights than he was in his placement. “He doesn’t want to be there . . . that’s a crisis situation and it needs an emergency response,” he said.
The agency had an obligation to find a way to deal with the situation without necessarily carrying out the forensic risk assessment, he said. He suggested the more suitable accommodation could be made available to the boy, with a “heightened safety plan” in place.
He said a response was needed “immediately”.
The solicitor for the agency said its resource panel would be meeting next week to discuss the case. Judge Toale adjourned until after that meeting.
