The parents of a boy suffering from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) could be facing a legal bill of more than €1 million after the High Court dismissed on all grounds their claim that the State had failed to provide early and appropriate education and therapies for him.
In a lengthy judgment which took almost three hours to read, Mr Justice Smyth yesterday rejected the case brought on behalf of Richard Clare, now aged 18, with an address in Waterford, who, since the proceedings were initiated in 2000, has finished school and completed his Leaving Certificate.
In his judgment, the judge said he did not accept large parts of the evidence from Richard's mother in relation to the education and therapies provided for him and he was quite critical of substantial parts of that evidence.
He also said he did not accept substantial parts of the evidence of an expert on ADHD who was called on behalf of Richard, preferring instead the evidence of other professionals who had seen Richard over a period of years.
Mr Justice Smyth said he believed the ADHD expert's evidence was influenced by selective information from Richard's mother. Whatever the boy's difficulties, whether these were due to ADHD, his life experiences, difficulties in growing up, home or school, "it was not want of resources" which caused them, the judge remarked.
After delivering judgment, he adjourned the case to October when he will deal with a number of matters, including costs. If costs are awarded against the boy's parents, they are expected to amount to more than €1 million, the case having run for 16 days in the High Court.
Following yesterday's judgment Ms Orla Phelan, solicitor with Ernest J. Cantillon and Co, for the plaintiffs, said the judgment "represents a blow to the rights of those with ADHD".
"The question that now remains to be asked is whether the Department of Education is really only paying lip-service to furthering the cause and rights of persons with a disability," she said.
"Despite being internationally recognised, the mislabelling, lack of tolerance and indeed lack of empathy towards those with ADHD in this country were today allowed to go unchecked."
In the proceedings, it was claimed that Richard had become a "social recluse" and had been significantly damaged due to the State's alleged failure to provide early and appropriate therapies and education and intervention for him.
It was contended that the State had obligations, under the Education Act, 1998, the Equal Status Act, 2000, and the Constitution, in relation to the provision of education for children with disabilities.
The court heard that the boy exhibited some behavioural problems in primary school. In 1998 he began attending a child psychologist and the same year started attending a secondary school. He displayed significant problems and received several detentions and a number of suspensions before being expelled in 2000.
After expulsion, he received one-to-one tuition for a time in a parish hall and later was placed in another secondary school.
He was diagnosed with ADHD in 1999 by a clinical psychiatrist with the South Eastern Health Board. He was then 13 years old. He was on medication for a time but later took too much of it and was sent to hospital.
The State denied any breach of its obligations and argued it had made considerable efforts to address the boy's situation.
In his judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Smyth praised the efforts of various Department of Education inspectors, psychologists and other staff who had worked with Richard.
