The High Court has authorised the Child and Family Agency to transfer a 17-year-old girl to a secure therapeutic placement in England, finding it was the only available setting capable of keeping her safe. The court said the decision was an exceptional response to the absence of an available special care bed in Ireland.
In a ruling delivered on 9 April 2024, Mr Justice Mark Heslin said the minor faced grave risks, including physical injury, sexual exploitation and drug use. Evidence before the court described her current placement as unstable and said she was missing from care more often than she was present. The judge said open care alternatives had been tried but could not keep her safe.
The Agency had obtained a Special Care Order in February, but it could not be put into effect because no staffed special care place was available. The ruling said purpose-built beds existed in Ireland, but the Agency lacked sufficient personnel to open additional capacity.
The proposed English placement was described as a secure children’s home offering care, health, education and therapeutic services. The court heard that the placement could address needs identified in assessments, including further assessment for ADHD, speech and language support and therapeutic care. The ruling said consent for the cross-border placement had been obtained under the 1996 Hague Convention, subject to conditions including ongoing Agency responsibility for costs, arrangements for a return to Ireland if detention criteria no longer applied, and intensive welfare reviews by the court every four weeks.
The minor opposed going to England and being detained. Her Guardian ad Litem supported the application reluctantly, saying no suitable special care placement was available in Ireland and the risks in the current circumstances were severe. The judge said he had taken the minor’s views into account but found that her best interests required secure care.
The court stated that the orders were necessary and proportionate because no less restrictive available arrangement could keep the minor safe. The ruling also criticised the wider failure to provide sufficient staffed special care beds, while emphasising that it did not direct criticism at any individual. The judge called the transfer an exceptional, ad hoc response and said special care orders must be capable of being implemented in practice.
The ruling approved the matters and orders set out in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the Agency’s draft order. The source does not reproduce those paragraphs, so the precise terms of each order are not set out in the ruling text provided.