The parents of a 13-year-old boy who has not attended school for nearly four years have vowed to continue their fight through the courts to be allowed educate him at home despite being told he could be taken into care.
At the Circuit Court in Boyle yesterday, Judge Anthony Kennedy told Mr James and Mrs Lucy Duffy of Drumkeeran, Co Leitrim, that if they were found to be in breach of the School Attendance Act they could be prosecuted under the Child Care Act of 1991, and that this could result in the boy being taken into care.
Later, responding to the suggestion that their son, Rory, could be taken into care, Mr Duffy said: `I can only point to the children that were in care over the last number of years. I know there are some good care institutions, but we have seen the result of some of them as well - there are some bad ones."
The Duffys, who have argued that they have a right under the Constitution to educate their children themselves, have now made a total of 15 court appearances.
The case was adjourned yesterday until the next sitting of Boyle Circuit Court after counsel for the State said the Director of Public Prosecutions had not yet been given the relevant file. Judge Kennedy also said he would be bound by a High Court judgment given in a case involving a family in Listowel, Co Kerry. This Listowel case is now going before the Supreme Court.
The Duffys were yesterday appealing against a ruling given at Ballyfarnan District Court last December when they were found to be in breach of the School Attendance Act and fined £10 each.
They were also convicted of the same charge at Dowra District Court in April 1997 and fined £10, a ruling which was upheld on appeal to the Circuit Court at Carrick-on-Shannon.
The couple, who were accompanied by an adviser, Mr Pierce Brennan, who appeared in court in bare feet, insisted after the hearing they had a right to educate their son at home under Article 42 of the Constitution.
Their other son, Gary (15), who is no longer part of the proceedings, is now attending a Youthreach programme. Mr Duffy said he believed Rory would suffer if he had to go back to school. He had attended two different primary schools and had been very unhappy. "We are the primary educators of the child. We are doing that - the best education that we know Rory can receive at this stage due to his experiences in school." He said he was glad Article 42 of the Constitution was there "to protect us as parents in the difficult situation that we have found ourselves in the last number of years".
He added: "I am willing to take this case all the distance that I know how, that is it. Rory cannot return to the school environment . . . He is a happy child in the home. He is learning and I am fit to get through to him, as my wife is, and he is learning."
Mr Duffy said he also wanted an investigation to be held into what had occurred when his son was attending primary school.