The High Court approved the transfer of a 19-year-old from a Nua Healthcare residential placement to his mother’s home, where he wished to live. It also proposed to make a declaration admitting him to wardship, after finding that the uncontroverted medical evidence met the criteria. The court did not order the agencies to continue funding the residential placement or direct them to carry out a risk assessment.
The Child and Family Agency, also known as Tusla, brought the transfer application, supported by the HSE. The young man and his mother supported the move. His guardian ad litem opposed it, arguing that the transition plan was inadequate and that a risk assessment was needed to protect him. The guardian’s concerns drew in part on past events and uncertainty about the home environment.
Mr Justice Mark Heslin said he could not safely find that the move was unsafe or would constitute degrading treatment. He noted that the court had no evidence of a specific current risk from the mother or her home. The guardian’s concerns were sincere, he said, but related largely to historical matters and possible future risks.
The court considered evidence that the young man would receive community supports after the move, including up to 15 hours a week through the Youth Advocacy Project Ability programme and access to a National Learning Network day programme. Professionals working with him would be familiar with the HSE safeguarding policy, and the HSE’s safeguarding team could be contacted if concerns arose. The judge also noted that peer-related safeguarding concerns had arisen while the young man was living in the residential placement.
The guardian had argued that the absence of a risk assessment meant the court should refuse the transfer. The judge said neither Tusla nor the HSE had carried out such an assessment in this case, and he could not conclude that this breached the young man’s constitutional rights. The HSE had said it was not appropriate for its disability services to assess risk from the proposed return home.
The court said it could not second-guess the agencies’ decisions about service levels and funding. The HSE had concluded that community and day services were the most effective support for the young man, and the agencies said they would not continue funding the residential placement. The judge said refusing the transfer could effectively compel them to spend public funds contrary to their assessments.
The ruling records the transfer decision and the judge’s intention to make the wardship declaration. It does not specify a committee appointment or set out any further order about the transfer in the supplied text.