A father has asked the High Court to overturn a “baffling” decision by Tusla not to place his teenage son in secure care after finding he does not meet the criteria.
The boy is allegedly involved in crime and drug use, associates with gang leaders and may be in danger due to having witnessed a murder, the man said.
In a sworn statement, the man said he believes there is a real and substantial risk of harm to his son’s life, health, safety, development and welfare.
The boy routinely engages in “extremely high-risk and chaotic” behaviour, has been charged with criminal offences including burglary and theft, and was arrested while travelling in a stolen car being driven the wrong way down a motorway, the man said.
The fall and rise of Orla Kiely: ‘As horrible as it was, you just have to get on with it. There are things we won’t do again’
A surreal Sunday on my Stoneybatter doorstep: ‘People have been stabbed, go inside and lock the door’
Arts Council spent more than €9m on consultants since 2019
Stephen Bradley: ‘After I got stabbed I hated football, hated life, hated everything about it, I was angry’
He said he understood his son witnessed a murder and has been spoken to about that by investigating gardaí. He is “deeply concerned” his son may be affected psychologically and may be in danger as a result of what he saw.
His son’s behaviour is getting worse, including associating with “hardened criminals” from an organised crime group, he said.
“I am beside myself with worry,” the man said.
He said he is aware of a chronic shortage of secure care beds and is concerned that while Tusla “well know” his son needs special care, it will not apply for the relevant order from the High Court due to the lack of places.
Ms Justice Sara Phelan on Friday granted leave to Joe Jeffers SC, instructed by Patrick O’Neill of O’Neill Litigation Solicitors, for the man, to bring judicial review proceedings against the Tusla.
Among various orders and declarations sought, the man wants an order compelling Tusla to seek a special care place for his son and a declaration that the failure to do so breaches his constitutional rights, including his right to life.
The man said the boy lives with a relative but effectively has his own apartment there, which is frequented by people involved in crime.
The boy’s mother has addiction issues and finds it difficult to care for him, the man said. He and the boy have a difficult relationship and, while respecting his son’s wish not to live with him, he said he loves the boy deeply and is “very concerned” for him.
A judge who recently imposed a deferred sentence on the boy has been consistently of the view he should be in special care and had expressed surprise Tusla has not been challenged over its current procedures regarding special care, he said.
He said Tusla is “well aware” of his son’s chaotic lifestyle and the social work department is of the view he requires special care.
The minutes of a special care committee meeting about his son recorded there was “a need to try a robust residential placement to try managing his behaviour prior to making a referral to special care”. It described special care as “a method of last resort”.
The committee was of the view that all community options “have not yet been exhausted” and his son did not meet the criteria for a special care intervention.
He said he finds that decision “baffling” given none of the committee had ever met his son and they appeared not to dispute that his behaviour poses a real and substantial risk.
It was “really difficult to understand” how the committee could conclude his son did not meet the criteria, he said.
