A teenage boy, who is in the care of a health board, is somewhere on the streets in extreme danger, abusing heroin and ecstasy, and it is "grossly unsatisfactory" that there is no short-term secure drug respite unit in this State to meet his needs, a High Court judge said yesterday.
After being told there is no available solution to the boy's immediate plight, Mr Justice McKechnie told the boy's lawyers they could apply for an urgent date for trial of an action against the South Western Area Health Board for declarations that the board has failed in its statutory duty to care for the boy.
The 16-year-old has lost two siblings to drugs and his parents, both alcoholics, are unable to care for him. He cannot secure admission to a residential drug treatment centre until he is drug free for two weeks.
Because of his drug problem, the court was told he needs to be placed in an interim respite unit and helped to achieve that two-week drug-free position. There is no such unit in the State.
Yesterday, Ms Doirbhile Flanagan SC, for the boy, said the situation was critical. He had been sent to Trinity House remand centre for a six week placement but remained there for a year. On being moved from Trinity House, there was no appropriate secure place available and he was placed in an open centre last February. He was now absconding from there on a regular basis and while he had been a very gifted sportsman and a particularly good hurler, all of that had gone by the board, counsel said. He had been at large for the past three weeks and his court appointed guardian was increasingly concerned about his plight.
All parties agreed he needed a place in a respite programme to help him achieve the two-week, drug-free status before he could be admitted to a treatment programme. There was no such place and she did not know what the court could do, Ms Flanagan said. It was clear the SWAHB had failed in its statutory duty towards this child and perhaps all the court could do was make declarations to that effect.
Mr Stephen McCann, for the SWAHB, said an extraordinary amount of work had been done by health board officials and others for the boy. There was agreement he required a respite place; the board would like to have such a facility but it did not.
"In a situation where all parties agreed what should be done, it was grossly unsatisfactory there was no appropriate place for this very unfortunate child, who was in extreme danger, despite the SWAHB's statutory duty to the boy," Mr Justice McKechnie said. All he could do was grant liberty to the boy's lawyers to seek the earliest possible date for their action against the board.