The Supreme Court has reserved judgment on the State's appeal against a High Court judge's order directing it to finance the building of units for disturbed children.
The order by Mr Justice Kelly was justified by the State's six-year delay in vindicating the constitutional rights of such children to appropriate care and accommodation, Mr Gerard Durcan SC, for a number of children, argued yesterday.
Mr Durcan said Mr Justice Kelly had no option but to make the order. If he had merely made orders directing the State to put children in facilities, these could not have been given effect to because there were no places for them. The fact that some of the applicant children were being placed in criminal institutions when they required high support or secure therapeutic places underlined that.
Counsel was opposing the State's appeal against Mr Justice Kelly's order of February 2000 directing the State to take all steps necessary to build and bring into operation special-care and high-support units for disturbed children in seven health board areas outside the Dublin area. The effect of the orders was that the State had to adhere to its own time-scales for provision of the units.
In granting the injunctions, the judge described the State's continuing failure to meet the needs of children at risk as "a scandal". In its appeal, the State argues the orders infringe the principle of separation of powers. It also contends the applicant children did not have the necessary legal standing to seek such a general order.
Closing the appeal yesterday, Mr Paul O'Higgins SC, for the State, said the order made by the High Court judge was "nakedly financial". He said the judge appeared to have carried out "a general inquisition" regarding policy in the area.
Counsel said the State had made extensive efforts to find appropriate accommodation for the teenage boy in whose name the injunction application was initially pursued but that boy had not co-operated with some placements.
Since 1995, Mr O'Higgins said, some 83 extra places had been provided in residential facilities. There were some 750 children in residential care throughout the State and some 4,000 in foster care.
But, counsel said, it was not just an issue of places; these were very difficult children and the failure was of parents, not the State. Evidence of a problem was not necessarily evidence of a failure of the State.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, presiding over the five-judge court, said it would reserve its decision.
