The District Court has ruled that an anonymised child in the care of the Health Service Executive (HSE) cannot be moved from Location 1 without a direction from the court, after rejecting the HSE’s proposed transfer to Location 2.
The judgment, dated 13 May 2010, arose from an application under section 47 of the Child Care Act 1991 brought by the child’s Guardian ad Litem (GAL). The GAL asked the court to prevent a change of placement at that time. The HSE opposed the application.
The judge said the child had been living at Location 1 since November 2008 and had expressed a wish to remain there. The child raised concerns about safety at Location 2, including an allegation that tablets had been found under a pillow and that a resident had threatened the child. The judgment records that Location 2 staff said they found no evidence to substantiate the allegation.
The judge sharply criticised the handling of that inquiry, concluding that it was not full, fair or reasonable. The court said the recorded follow-up consisted of limited steps, including speaking to residents who denied knowledge of the incident, and that investigators did not return to the child to discuss their findings. The judge found that the inquiry failed to take the child’s account seriously and damaged the child’s trust in the HSE. The judgment does not establish that the alleged drugs or threat were proven.
The court also found that no written change-of-placement plan existed before 20 April 2009, and described the later two-week induction document as inadequate. It rejected the HSE’s submission that the lower cost of Location 2 justified the move, saying the HSE had created the circumstances the child faced.
The judge said a placement change was unlikely within three months and could happen only if specified matters were addressed. Any contemplated change would require the court’s direction, and the GAL would have to be involved in planning and implementation and sanction the change before the court permitted it. The judgment offered suggested transitional steps, while acknowledging that the judge lacked the expertise to devise a change plan. It did not order a transfer or determine the underlying safety allegations as fact.