The District Court directed the Health Service Executive to keep a 14-year-old child in her current residential placement after finding that her mental and emotional welfare required continuity of care.
The direction was made on 8 December 2011 under section 47 of the Child Care Act 1991. The application was brought by the child’s Guardian ad Litem (GAL), with a similar application by the child’s mother. Both sought a direction that the child remain at Residential Unit 1 while in HSE care. The HSE had proposed moving her to Residential Unit 2 after a dispute with the current provider over funding became intractable.
The court heard that the child had experienced multiple placements since entering HSE care in January 2010. The judgment records that she had post-traumatic stress disorder, episodes of self-harm and two mental health hospitalisations. She had been at Residential Unit 1 since 22 July 2011, following hospital treatment that included detention under section 25 of the Mental Health Act 2001.
Medical and social work material before the court warned that another move could undermine the child’s progress and put her mental and emotional health at risk. The GAL also raised concerns about the current mix of young residents at Residential Unit 2. The court noted that the HSE had selected that unit before its social work team visited and assessed whether it met the child’s individual needs. Its process for seeking additional funding for the existing placement had not referred to reports about the child’s medical needs and vulnerabilities.
The court said it could make directions on the child’s welfare under section 47, but could not grant declaratory relief. Having considered the evidence and submissions, it concluded that the child’s vulnerabilities and history of placement changes required her to remain in her current placement. It said the HSE could deal with its funding issues as it saw fit, but the child could not become “a pawn” in them.
The direction was limited to the child remaining in her current placement while in HSE care. The court said the case presented unusual circumstances specific to this child and rejected the suggestion that it would have a domino effect on the HSE. Remaining issues, including access issues, were adjourned to 26 January 2012. The court also certified the case for Senior Counsel and ordered that the GAL’s costs be measured as of that day, with costs to be taxed if not agreed.