A 17-year-old girl was forced to be sent to a specialist secure unit in the UK due to a lack of similar facilities in Ireland, an action which was deemed “disgraceful” by a High Court judge. Subsequently, although reluctantly and with regret, Mr Justice John Jordan revoked his original directive for the girl’s confinement in an Irish special care institution after learning that the girl had been moved to the UK.
The court was informed that the girl’s life was under constant threat and Mr Justice Jordan expressed his concern about her exploitation “to an exceptional extent”, a fact that could have repercussions for her future. He depicted her as a troubled young girl, with no one to advocate for her.
He criticised the Child and Family Agency, also known as Tusla, for failing to implement an order for her confinement in an expert environment in Ireland, which he deemed intolerable. He termed her relocation to the UK, authorised by a separate High Court order, as regrettable, dubbing it “an Irish solution to an Irish problem”.
The reason for the non-enforcement of his order was a lack of vacancies in the state’s trio of specialist secure institutions, a consequence of a personnel crisis in the sector. He highlighted that there are presently eight high-risk minors who are not in special care despite his directives. These are children aged 12-17 requiring such confinement to preserve their lives, safety and development.
Mr Justice Jordan questioned the logic of an established democracy where legislation has no impact due to the inoperability of the responsible system. He attributed it to an outrageous failure on part of the authorities to provide a resolution. He insisted that his special care directive for the 17-year-old shouldn’t have been discharged and getting a High Court order to allow her transfer to the UK because of “system failures in Ireland” should not have been necessary, describing the predicament as disgraceful.
The girl’s court-appointed advocate, represented by lead barrister David Leahy, informed the court that she had been moved via private plane and her overseas placement is costing tens of thousands of euros each month. Despite such large expenditures, the Child and Family Agency, claims they are unable to sufficiently finance the staffing of the three special care units in Ireland. Mr Leahy mentioned that the relocation to the UK was a more favorable circumstance than what she had undergone in Ireland.
Sarah McKechnie, the legal representative for the agency, countered that the decision to move the girl abroad was taken only as a last resort and is deeply regrettable. She went on to emphasize that the funds utilized for the transferring and internment of the girl in foreign lands could not be repurposed to increase the number of special care spots in Ireland.
Even though the agency has managed to employ new staff for special care units, there is a higher turnover rate, she added. The payment that the agency can offer its staff is restricted by public sector wage agreements.
In response to this, Mr Justice Jordan stated that it was essential to determine which authority or body has the ability to rectify the hurdles preventing children, like this girl, from receiving special care placements in Ireland. He suggested the possibility of a pay increase to lure more candidates to the profession, even though he acknowledged it might not be a feasible solution.
He expressed his concerns regarding the prevailing conditions, stating that corrective measures are needed from those in positions of power. He tasked Tusla with providing a report about the attempts made to increase the availability of special care beds.
Separately, the chief executive of the agency is involved in legal proceedings that may result in their imprisonment for the agency’s alleged neglect to follow an order concerning the placement of another young adolescent in special care. This particular case has been postponed.