The State is to bring an appeal to the Supreme Court against a High Court order directing it to build and bring into operation special care and high-support units for troubled children in seven health board areas.
In its notice of appeal, the State claims that Mr Justice Kelly, when he granted the orders last February, was wrong in finding that the State had not made all reasonable efforts to deal efficiently and effectively with the problems of several disturbed children who had sought the orders.
The judge had described as a "scandal" the State's continuing failure to provide for the needs of children at risk, five years after the courts had declared that the children had a constitutional right to appropriate care and accommodation.
Noting yesterday that the State now intended to appeal his orders, Mr Justice Kelly said he had been told there was a "deep commitment" to such children on the State's part.
The State had argued that the children had no legal standing to seek such orders and had complained that the orders were unspecific.
It also contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction to make such orders and was trespassing on an area of Government policy.
The effect of the orders was that some 40 extra places were to be made available in new units in Monaghan, Clare, Limerick, Tipperary, Waterford and Cork, as well as at other sites not then specified in the Mid-Western and Southern Health Board regions.
The judge made the orders after finding that there was "culpable slippage" by the Department of Health and Children in meeting its own targets for the building of such units.
In its notice of appeal, the State contends that the judge was wrong to find that the children had legal standing to seek the orders and that he was wrong to find that the terms of the injunctions were sufficiently specific to be complied with by the State.
It is also claimed that the judge was wrong to grant order in terms "much broader than those required to satisfy specific current needs" of the children and that he had no jurisdiction to make such orders because this involved a breach of the separation of powers.
The State also claims the judge was wrong in holding that it was necessary for him to make the orders so that the children's constitutional rights might be vindicated.
Mr Justice Kelly was also wrong in finding that the State had not made all reasonable efforts to deal efficiently and effectively with the children's problems, it is claimed.
In July 1998 Mr Justice Kelly made a then unprecedented order directing the Eastern Health Board to take all steps necessary to build and bring into operation units for troubled children at Ballydowd, Lucan, and at Portrane.
The State also opposed the making of that order and refused to give an undertaking to adhere to the timescales it had set for completion of the units. However, it did not appeal the High Court decision regarding Ballydowd and Portrane to the Supreme Court.
An extremely disturbed teenage girl has been told that she must remain in a State remand centre for at least another month because there is no suitable facility available for her and no indication of when a place in a new special care unit will become available.
In the High Court yesterday Mr Justice Kelly was told there was a "high probability" that a place might be found for the girl at the new 24-bed special care unit at Ballydowd, Lucan, which is due to open on a phased basis from September 5th.
