A 17-year-old troubled youth who has begun tackling his heroin addiction is to be moved to a hostel used by addicts despite his fears he will be offered heroin there, the High Court heard yesterday.
The youth is being moved due to the imminent closure of a health board care unit.
Mr Justice Murphy was told the youth is being moved from his current placement, where he has been making progress, because the unit in question is being closed down on Sunday. His court-appointed guardian had opposed his being moved to a hostel on grounds that placement is unsuitable.
The teenager has a history of heroin addiction and has lost a brother and sister to the drug. He has also expressed suicidal thoughts. His parents, as a result of significant alcohol addiction and other problems, are unable to function as parents. In the care of the South Western Area Health Board, his case has been before the High Court on 13 occasions since November 2002.
Yesterday, Mr Mark de Blacam SC, for the youth, asked Mr Justice Murphy to set a date for the hearing of proceedings by the youth against the board.
He said the youth had been in his present placement since last July. In recent times he was using the placement consistently and in the past four weeks had accepted he needed help and had begun a methadone programme. He had told his guardian: "If I didn't have this place, I wouldn't be off the heroin now."
Now it was being proposed that the youth be placed in a night time hostel which really catered for children who were homeless. This was neither a placement nor a plan for the youth. The hostel catered only for emergency cases and for children who were using drugs. The youth had told his guardian he didn't want to go there and feared he would be associating with other drug users who would offer him heroin.
It was significant that the board's own social workers had not described the proposed hostel as suitable and only expressed the hope the move would work out, counsel added.
There was a justiciable issue as to whether the board was meeting its duty to protect the youth as required under the Child Care Act. The evidence showed the board was in breach of its statutory obligation.
However, Mr Patrick MacEntee SC, for the SWAHB, said this was an extremely difficult case where the youth had used heroin and "at this late stage is co-operating". The board had kept the present unit open for as long as it could but it was always intended as a temporary arrangement and was not a suitable premises.
The board had to "look at the bigger picture, a resource picture that includes obligations to others". In nine months, the youth would be 18-years-old and would have to be helped take more responsibility, counsel said.
There were indications the youth had used his present unit when he chose. The new placement was run by very responsible people and was not a retrogressive step. He accepted there would be no room available to the youth on a 24-hour basis but the youth's present team of supports, including social workers and a psychologist, would remain available to him.
Mr MacEntee asked the court to adjourn the matter for a month. Mr Justice Murphy said it was worthwhile to try the new regime and he would adjourn the matter to March 26th.