A Dublin District Court heard an update regarding a boy in need of immediate special care who was in his fifth special emergency arrangement (SEA), the other four having broken down. The judge noted how the boy had only recently turned eleven, the minimum age requirement for entering special care. The judge said: “There should be protests every day of the week up and down O’Connell Street at the plight of these children”.
He was critical of the Child and Family Agency (CFA) and suggested that the Agency was “telling different judges different things”, referring to how such matters can simultaneously occupy District Court and High Court lists.
The boy met the legal test to warrant special care, that his behaviour posed a serious risk to his “life, health, safety, development or welfare,” the judge said. The court heard of how special care beds are prioritised purely on risk, meaning the child at the highest risk gets the bed.
The solicitor for the GAL suggested that the multiple steps required to obtain a special care bed are designed to “slow down the whole system”. It meant that the special care service did not have a “no beds” list, when in actual fact there were many children waiting for a bed who did not appear on a waiting list because of delays in drafting legal papers and there were prolonged delays in the four statutory steps towards special care: consultation, family welfare conference, determination, and the High Court application. The court heard there were 16 special care beds operational at that time.
When the case came back before the court for an urgent update the court heard expert evidence from Tusla’s special emergency arrangement (SEA) co-ordinator and its Dublin North East Regional Chief Officer. The High Court had directed the boy be placed in special care but there was no bed.
Special care is secure care in Ireland for 11 to 17 year olds. If given a bed, this boy would be the youngest child ever placed in special care. His behaviour included joyriding, drug running and smoking cannabis on the bus. All involved, including his parents, deemed his risk-taking behaviour to be so extreme that he posed a risk to his own life and of others. The court heard how this made him one of the most vulnerable children in the State. In the absence of a registered, regulated placement, a decision was taken that a special emergency arrangement (SEA) would be safer than him remaining at home. Four SEA placements had broken down and the boy was currently living in his fifth SEA.
The national SEA co-ordinator described how, when an SEA is required, his role was to review what was needed and to find accommodation and staff. For this child, security had been put in place at his SEA due to the risk of assaults of staff. When incidents occurred, a significant event notification (SEN) was filled in and discussed by the team of professionals caring for the child. The SEA co-ordinator described steps taken to ensure that this SEA had good governance and oversight, including daily logs and handover plans.
He had brought in two additional, more experienced, staff members, to whom the child responded well. Part of their work with him was to implement boundaries. The co-ordinator recalled how, on arrival to the SEA, the boy’s routine was to return home from school, spend long periods on PlayStation, and not to want to leave again. This resulted in him not burning energy and then staying up all night.
To counter this behaviour, the SEA TV room was locked at midnight and not reopened until 2pm the following day. Another example of boundaries was to prepare meal plans with the child; once agreed, they were stuck up in the kitchen where he could clearly see what would be for dinner and other meals each day. The co-ordinator explained, “the more structure we have, the more activities can be incorporated.”
The judge asked: “How many children are in an SEA today?” The co-ordinator replied: “17 in the Dublin North East Region.” He was not aware of national figures. The judge asked if the co-ordinator oversaw visits to or inspections of SEAs. The co-ordinator confirmed that there was a mix of scheduled and unannounced visits. The judge suggested that unannounced would be better. The judge asked the solicitor for the CFA: “Do you have a witness who can tell us when he’ll get a special care bed?” The solicitor called the Chief Regional Officer for Tusla Dublin North East Region.
She confirmed that there were currently 15 children in special care in Ireland and there was “no further capacity regarding staff.”. She said the CFA expected a discharge in January, over two months away. She confirmed that there were currently two boys on the waiting list, otherwise known as the “no beds” list, both from North inner city Dublin. She said if the boy got a residential care placement this would not preclude him from special care. The mother’s solicitor asked her: “How long will it take?” to which she replied, “I don’t have an answer for that”.
The GAL solicitor asked if there were any plans to set up a bespoke placement for the child. The solicitor asked what was the point in “continuing to make applications for placements, when they are bound to fail for this boy?” The regional coordinator resisted the suggestion of a bespoke placement, saying, “well, his profile has improved.” She spoke of the challenges of “supply and demand” within special care. She said it was very difficult to get qualified staff to work in special care. There were “beds but no staff.” She confirmed there were currently 15 special care beds operational in the State, with capacity for 18 to 19. She added, “I don’t manage special care.”
Speaking directly to her, the judge expressed concern that short term improvements in the boy’s current SEA might “elbow him out of the way” of the one placement he needed, special care. The judge said he hoped that it would not be a case of “marching all the king’s horses to the top of the hill, and marching them all down again,” in an exercise of futility.
The judge listed the matter for a progress update the following week. He said: “This child should be getting ready for Santa Claus, instead he is worrying about where he will be.” He added: “The court remains incandescent with rage” at the lack of a special care bed for this child.