A high Court judge yesterday criticised the "administrative torpor and absence of planning" for children who require special accommodation and therapy for their own welfare.
Mr Justice Kelly said the organs of the State had failed to provide any or adequate facilities to deal with the problem.
He said such children were formerly provided for in homes run by religious orders but with the decline of vocations these orders had had to withdraw - and the burden shifted to the State, which had been manifestly ill-prepared to take on such obligations.
The vacuum had not been filled by the legislature or executive and applications began to be made to the High Court as a place of last resort, with a view to assisting and enforcing the rights of such young people.
Mr Justice Kelly was giving judgment in proceedings taken by a 15-year-old boy who is in a remand centre because of lack of suitable accommodation. The boy challenged the State's failure to provide services suitable to his needs.
The judge directed that the court be kept abreast of shortterm developments to deal with the problem and be told of the outcome of proposed meetings among senior managers in the various health boards.
He also directed that the court be told of what overall plan or strategy had been, or was being, devised to deal with the problems in the short term in all health board areas.
He said this information was to be placed before the court not later than January 27th next and the matter would be listed for hearing on January 29th.
Mr Justice Kelly said it was quite clear that those children's rights had not been addressed, even though those rights had been declared by the High Court in a decision of Mr Justice Geoghegan over three years ago.
The administrative torpor and absence of planning had been largely responsible for this. That was not to deny or understate the problems involved but more progress ought to have been made.
He had a high regard for the personnel of the Eastern Health Board and the institutions that had been called upon to house these young people. Nobody could envy them their task.
The interim position, however, remained unsatisfactory. There was no information as to the numbers of young people in the State who required such facilities.
The figures from the EHB showed there were about 15 to 20 children who would require to be catered for in the interim period; there was a maximum of 11 places in the short term and four or five of those places had been promised by the Southern and Western health boards.
In the circumstances, said Mr Justice Kelly, the court would monitor closely the steps to be taken in the near future and reserve the right to intervene if necessary.