The Supreme Court was informed about the delayed placement of a 15-year-old boy into secure state care, approximately seven months after the High Court had commanded so. The teenager, who was familiar with suicidal ideations and was found dealing class A drugs, was unfortunately housed securely after an inordinate delay.
The teenager’s mother is appealing against the High Court’s rejection to pronounce that Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, was disobeying a court order by not holding the teenager in one of its dedicated care units. The incident is now being reviewed by a five-judge panel at the Supreme Court.
The agency was legitimately bound last December to requisition the detention order for the teenager, who was then 14 years old. Nevertheless, it informed the High Court that it was unable to comply with the order due to a severe staff shortage leading to an inability to provide enough beds for all the children in need.
The teenager was among the several children Tusla was unable to retain in the specialised detention centres catering to 12 to 17-year-olds, aiming to reduce negative behavioural tendencies and harm risk.
Justice John Jordan of the High Court adjudged that the contempt plea did not adhere to the proper process. He mentioned a court rule which necessitates an applicant wanting to call upon the contempt jurisdiction to move for the “attachment” of the person alleged to be in contempt.
However, the teenager’s mother’s legal team implored the Supreme Court on Tuesday to contradict this ruling and state that the agency was in contempt of court when it failed to detain the boy.
Michael Lynn, senior counsel, argued that Tusla defended the High Court case purely on the grounds of procedure, offering no explanation as to why these special care orders are continually violated.
During the High Court trial, the boy’s community placement had deteriorated, disclosed Mr Lynn. He was harbouring suicidal thoughts and was discovered possessing cocaine.
In trying to enforce compliance with the previous special care order, the boy’s mother deemed it necessary to apply for a declaration of contempt against the State agency, Mr Lynn added. He also mentioned that it was considered “inappropriate” to request for a corresponding order for a representative from Tusla to be imprisoned for the alleged contravention.
Senior counsel for the agency, Feichín McDonagh, argued that the method in which the boy’s mother presented her case raised serious questions around fair procedures.
The case in question was presented as a private action, not under a court rules mandate, asserted the legal representative. However, he clarified that contempt of court cannot be addressed as a private law solution since it uses the power of the High Court to impose its orders.
Justice Aileen Donnelly pondered upon the need for the mother to demonstrate that there was indeed an intent to commit contempt. It was pointed out that the intent is not necessarily relevant to a contempt issue.
“It’s more than merely non-compliance,” was the legal representative McDonagh’s view on contempt. He explained that his client, a public entity, has certain restrictions to work within, such as the salary caps for special care personnel. These caps, the court heard, require the formal approval of the Public Expenditure Department.
The panel of five judges probed into the specific obstacles for compliance. Justice Maurice Collins highlighted the need for concern if a state body attributed its non-adherence to resource scarcity. He queried whether the courts can tackle objections, like those presented in this case, with the claim that public wage limits hinder compliance with a judge’s mandate.
He posed a significant question on the threat it poses towards the principle of the rule of law providing the foundation for the jurisdiction. The representative, Mr McDonagh, concluded by informing the court of immense distress experienced by his client’s personnel. They have been making relentless efforts to balance the noteworthy shortage of special care locations and defending the rights of at-risk minors. The appeal hearing has been scheduled for continuation on the forthcoming Wednesday.