Dead at 14

JUST OVER a year after entering the State’s care system, Devlin Kavanagh was dead. He was 14 years old. He had taken his own life, the final act of a turbulent year and a half in which his life had spun dramatically out of control.

Diagnosed with learning difficulties, he dropped out of school and was refused entry to another. Soon he was experimenting with drugs and hanging out with older kids.

His parents, unable to cope, looked for help from social services, and now feel his case was never taken seriously enough.

“We were crying out for help, but it never arrived,” says his mother, Orla Kavanagh. “We still wonder how things might have turned out differently.”

Devlin’s case is one of 196 deaths of young people in contact with the State’s child-protection services between 2000 and 2010. They will feature in a harrowing report by the Independent Child Death Review group to be published by the Government today.

Of those 196 deaths, some 112 died of non-natural causes such as drug overdoses, suicides, road traffic incidents or unlawful killings. The report will provide the first definitive account of how the State interacted with these children and the extent to which they were cared for or failed by the State. Among the key findings will be that:

* The majority of children in the review did not receive an adequate child protection service;

* Some files were in “complete disarray”, with little or no records as to what happened when to some young people, especially those in aftercare;

* The HSE closed files on some children, even though they were aware of ongoing drug and alcohol abuse within their families, which placed young people at risk;

* In some cases, no aftercare was provided to young people who left the care of the HSE, considered an “abdication of duty” on the part of authorities;

* Earlier and more consistent intervention would have increased the chances that some children might have overcome their vulnerabilities.

The report will also state there was evidence of good practice in what, in many instances, were very complex cases.

A considerable range of services was often made available, while individual staff made real efforts to intervene and build relationships with young people. Too often, however, there was a sporadic and inconsistent approach to dealing with vulnerable children.

These are fault-lines reflected in the handling of Devlin’s case. While some staff tried to help, his parents feel he fell through the cracks in what appears to be a chaotic child-protection system that is too consumed by emergencies and crisis-management.

An investigation by the Ombudsman for Children found there was a failure by authorities to take the family concerns seriously and that he was not permitted to stay in secure care long enough to address his problems.

In addition, administrative actions on the part of the HSE were either based on erroneous or incomplete information.

Today’s independent review group report – written by Norah Gibbons, director of advocacy with Barnardos, and Geoffrey Shannon, a solicitor and specialist in child law, is expected to raise further concerns. Devlin’s family hope it will call for an independent inquiry into the handling of his case – and others – to ensure lessons are learned and that other vulnerable teens receive the kind of support they need.

“He was very tall for his age, six foot two inches,” his mother says. “He looked older than he was, but in reality he was very vulnerable. He was a child. He was easily led and just didn’t see badness in anyone.

“We wanted to get private help at the start, but were told the system would help. In the end, there was no real interest, and no real accountability. We feel so badly let down.

“Now,” Ms Kavanagh adds, “all we want are answers. We want to know what went wrong . . . All we are left with are unanswered questions.”