A high Court judge yesterday refused as "unmeritorious" and "ill-founded" the State's request to alter an unprecedented order directing three Government Ministers and a health board immediately to find a safe and secure place for an extremely disturbed girl. This was to happen if and when she was located following her escape from a therapeutic unit. Failure to comply with the order amounts to contempt of court.
The State yesterday asked that the order should be against "Ireland" and not the Ministers. Rejecting that application, Mr Justice Kelly said an order against "Ireland" could not be enforced. He hoped the Ministers, on their next visit to the court, would be able to say they had found a secure place for this tragic child who, for all he knew, could be dead. The judge had made the order on Wednesday against the Minister for Health and Children, the Minister for Education and the Minister for Justice. He also made the order against a health board which cannot be identified.
The order arises from the escape last Friday of the 17-yearold girl from a purpose-built therapeutic unit. The judge said the girl has had "a miserable existence". She was in foster care from the age of one year, was sexually abused at seven, has a history of abusing solvents, alcohol and various drugs, was involved in prostitution, had a miscarriage and a history of self-mutilation and self-harm, including two attempts at suicide by hanging.
Following an incident when she set her dressing gown on fire after barricading herself into a room in a secure unit for criminal offenders, she was detained in the locked ward of an adult psychiatric hospital with 29 seriously mentally ill adults.
From there, she was moved to a therapeutic unit which was built by court order. However, the judge has heard evidence this week that that arrangement had not worked out and the girl escaped on October 10th. She returned voluntarily on October 12th but escaped while attending a hospital the following day and remained at large. During last Wednesday's hearing the judge heard evidence from psychologists about the implications of identifying the girl in the media in an effort to locate her. He decided against disclosure of her identity after hearing it might have considerable adverse effects on her. However, he is to review it this afternoon if the girl has not been found.
He also heard evidence that neither the therapeutic unit from where she had escaped, the Central Mental Hospital, the adult psychiatric ward where the girl was previously held nor Oberstown House, a State remand centre, was an appropriate or possible detention option for her if she was located and returned. The option of Mountjoy Prison was also raised but the judge said he would not consider sending her there, particularly because the girl, illustrating how skewed her thinking was, regarded going there as an achievement and also believed she would find it easy to get drugs there.
It was in those circumstances he made the order directing the Ministers and health board to get together and nominate a place where the girl could be safely and securely held, if she is found, until the matter returns for further review by the court.
Yesterday, Mr Paul O'Higgins SC, for the State, said he was instructed to ask the judge to vary the order to the extent that it should be directed against "Ireland" and not the Ministers.
Ms Teresa Blake, for the health board, said her client accepted the court's order and was not making any application.
Mr O'Higgins said the order should not be against Government Ministers. Ireland was governed by a Government which had collective responsibility. It was not appropriate to make such an order against Ministers.
Mr Justice Kelly asked: "If Ireland does not comply, what do I do? If I make an order that is unenforceable, it's of little benefit to a child whose health and welfare is at stake." Mr O'Higgins said he was surprised at remarks by the court regarding who should or not be in contempt of court. There was no hint of any wilful failure to do anything, he said. The judge asked if counsel's clients had a place for the girl. Mr O'Higgins said his clients had "contingent plans" to care for her when she was found but these could not be fixed in stone until she was found. His clients had every intention of complying with the obligations under the order which, he contended, were Ireland's obligations and not those of individual Ministers.
It was not proper to foist what was a Government responsibility on the shoulders of individual Ministers, he added. The judge asked if he should name every Minister of the Government in the order. Counsel said he was not making that submission.
Mr Mark de Blacam SC, for the girl, asked the judge not to change his order. The Supreme Court had said Ireland should not be injuncted and if the order was made against Ireland, the girl had no means of enforcing it.
The judge outlined various court decisions setting out the State's obligations to protect and vindicate the rights of children and said it was in the context of those rights that the State's application must be considered. He was dealing with a child who had had a miserable existence and a most unhappy life. He set out the circumstances which led to his ordering, last May, the building of a special therapeutic unit for the girl. It had appeared this would be adequate to her needs but that was not the case. She had escaped from there and returned on October 12th under the influence of drugs. She had injected heroin using an infected needle and she was at risk of contracting hepatitis or worse. On October 13th, she escaped from a hospital.
The evidence made it clear that, while the girl remained free, she was at risk of losing her life. She had been under the influence of entirely malignant people, prostitutes, pimps, drug dealers and drug takers. His worry was that the child would die or get further involved with such influences. He had directed she be arrested and, if she was detained or gave herself up, she had to be kept secure because being at large carried for her the risk of death.
He had heard evidence of possible options but he could not return her to the therapeutic unit, it was not secure and there were staffing problems. She also could not return to the locked psychiatric ward, SIPTU had threatened industrial action if she was.
The Central Mental Hospital had ruled out the possibility of taking her there and it would be unsafe, from the point of view of staff and other children, to return her to Oberstown Girls' Centre. Mountjoy Prison had been mentioned but he was loath to send anyone there, let alone a child with no criminal convictions.
The judge said he was left with the dilemma of trying to find a place for her where she could be held for a short period of time, would be safe and not fall under malignant influences. Despite exceptional efforts by Mr Roger Killeen of the Department of Education and others to find places for troubled children, no place could be found.
Mr Justice Kelly said he did not have the resources of Government Departments or health boards. At the end of the day, he was left with no option. It could not be said that, with all the re sources of the State, a place could not be found for a 17-year-old girl, so he had moved the responsibility back to where it belonged. He had directed the Ministers who have responsibility for children in some shape or form to put their heads together and nominate a place of safety where she could go for 48 hours until the matter returned to court. He had named the Ministers, not Ireland, because he wanted the order to be carried into effect.
Notwithstanding other orders he had made, the needs of children were still not being met. He had only recently been told that the opening of a secure unit would be delayed because the wrong glass and locks were installed and he was incapable of understanding how this had happened. What it meant was the rights of children were being further long-fingered.
He could not allow that to happen. That was why he made the order against the Ministers.
