The High Court has concluded that improving pay and working conditions for staff in Ireland’s special care units is necessary to address a crisis that left five children without beds despite court orders. It identified pay as a core issue and said the Child and Family Agency and two government departments could resolve the problem urgently.
Mr Justice Jordan delivered the judgment on 16 October 2024 following focused reviews held on 27 and 28 June and 17 July. The reviews examined five children whose special care orders were current but had not been given effect because no beds were available. The court heard evidence from the Child and Family Agency and senior officials from the departments responsible for children and public expenditure.
The judgment describes three special care units with capacity for 26 children, of which 15 beds were occupied at the time of the evidence. The Agency’s chief executive, Kate Duggan, attributed the underuse mainly to staffing shortages and difficulty retaining staff. From the start of 2021 to April 2024, 168 social care staff were hired and 174 left. The court also heard that violence and staff absences, a shortage of suitable alternative placements and a lack of step-down placements added pressure to the system.
The Agency had sought approval to raise the special care allowance, including proposals for €5,000 in 2019 and 2020 and €10,000 in 2023. The 2019 proposal was rejected; the 2020 proposal was not sent on for approval; and the 2023 proposal had not been accepted by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform by the time of the hearing, though officials said discussions continued. The court rejected the view that pay was not a central factor, finding on the evidence that higher pay was essential to recruiting and retaining enough staff to operate the units at full capacity.
The judgment set out the children’s individual circumstances in anonymised form. It recorded that D and E had waited more than six months for beds at the time of the review hearing. By the time of judgment, D had been admitted in July and E in September 2024. F had turned 18 and G was also 18 by then; the source does not state that either was admitted. H’s first special care order had been made in June 2024.
The court did not make directions against the Agency or go beyond the scope of the reviews. It said the evidence showed the problem was not without a solution and that the Agency and the two departments could address it if they were willing to act urgently. The judgment does not order them to implement a particular measure.