Vulnerable children at risk of becoming ‘institutionalised’ due to lack of care places

The State’s inability to provide appropriate residential placements and a lack of specialised services for vulnerable children are highlighted in the latest reports from the Child Law Project, due to be published on Monday.

A small number of cases of unaccompanied minors fleeing war abroad are also included in the reports.

The Child Law Project was established in 2012 under the Child Care Act to report on and examine court orders made under the Act, mainly relating to taking children into care. Its latest bulletin comprises of 62 reports – 50 from the District Court, 11 High Court cases related to wardship proceedings and one composite report on special care cases heard by the High Court.

The majority of District Court cases attended by the Child Law Project concerned applications for care orders, with key themes including parental mental health, parental addictions, homelessness and domestic violence.

Ask Owen Doyle: When should a rugby referee give a warning, and when should they give a penalty?

---

Taxation on investments: What changes might be on the way?

---

Gardaí to use undercover lorry to see into cars and HGVs and film distracted drivers

---

Radio: The 2 Johnnies set to leave 2FM next week, RTÉ confirms

---

The focus of several of the cases published was the State’s inability to provide appropriate placements for vulnerable children. In one such case a teenage girl, who was both in care and a ward of court, was detained for several months in the paediatric wing of a hospital due to escalating patterns of self-harm.

The Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) refused to admit her to one of its inpatient units. After a failed attempt at mainstream residential care, the teenager was placed in the “least worst option” of a children’s hospital. She remained in this hospital for several weeks where she shared a room with a young child before being admitted to a special care unit.

Dr Maria Corbett, chief executive of the Child Law Project, said the lack of step-down residential placements was “hindering the timely discharge of children from special care”.

“This is particularly concerning given that these are secure placements which entail a deprivation of liberty,” she said. “A delayed discharge may undermine the child’s progress or risk them becoming institutionalised.”

Dr Corbett added that the State appears “ill-equipped” to respond to children who have experienced trauma or loss, who have a disability or mental health issue, and whose home life or care placement has broken down.

“Discussions in court cite difficulties recruiting and retaining care staff, the limited number of special care beds, and the narrow legislative definitions required to trigger an obligation on HSE disability and CAMHS mental health services to get involved. Political attention is urgently needed to rectify the State’s failure to provide a timely, joined-up response to these vulnerable children,” Dr Corbett said.

The latest reports also include a case where the District Court granted an interim barring order against a man who was in custody but who was likely to be released back to the family home on bail the following day. The Child Law Project said it was “an unusual case” as the barring order was not sought by the man’s partner, but by the Child and Family Agency (Tusla), as provided for under section 11 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018.

Dr Carol Coulter, executive director of the Child Law Project, said: “This is the first time we have observed this provision of the 2018 Domestic Violence Act being used. The CFA is to be commended for its efforts to protect this mother and her children from the threat of violence, in circumstances where the mother had applied for a barring order but later withdrew it.”

Case study: Tusla successfully applied for interim barring order against child’s father

A judge in a rural District Court granted an extension of an interim care order for a child of post-primary school age, and also granted an interim barring order against the child’s father.

The child had made and subsequently retracted a serious allegation of sexual abuse against her father. The lawyer for Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, explained that the mother had been in hospital giving birth to her youngest child at the time the girl had made the allegation against her father.

In the case, detailed in the latest bulletin on of the Child Law Project, the judge said that this was a very serious allegation, and that Tusla should consider whether there were sufficient protective factors in place.

The social worker reported that “a number of pieces of work” were being conducted with the child towards eventual family reunification but that these had been paused following an episode of very aggressive and dangerous behaviour by her father.

The lawyer for the Child and Family Agency told the court that the father had engaged in a dangerous driving incident while the mother and other children were in the car, an experience which left the mother and children traumatised afterwards.

Tusla had made an application under section 11 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 for an interim barring order against the father of the children. The mother had initially applied for a barring order but subsequently amended it to an application for a protection order. She then reapplied for an interim barring order and later withdrew this application. The mother was present in court.

Tusla’s lawyer said that father was in custody but had intended making a bail application the following day. The court heard that should it be granted there was a possibility that he could immediately return to the family home. It was this prospect which led to Tusla’s belief that an interim barring order was required.

The lawyer said the family’s safety and welfare were in danger unless a barring order was made.

The judge decided that, although some matters were hearsay, he had formed the opinion that reasonable grounds existed to grant the interim barring order of eight days’ duration, which must be served on the father in prison.