The High Court has refused an application to set aside an order approving the transfer of a 44-year-old ward, identified as SOM, from his current residential placement in Co. Cork to a bespoke placement elsewhere in the county.
In a judgment delivered on 23 November 2022, Ms Justice Niamh Hyland ruled that SOM’s long-term best interests remained served by the proposed move. The motion was brought by his Committee, who sought an order allowing him to remain at the current facility with additional supports. The judge declined that relief, leaving the order of 23 March 2022 in place. The judgment does not itself state that the move had taken place.
SOM has autism and an intellectual disability. The court had previously approved the move after a contested hearing in July 2021, subject to further psychological evidence, and made a final order in March 2022 after approving a comprehensive service plan. The proposed placement, offered by the Brothers of Charity, includes a specially renovated single-occupancy house, an on-site multidisciplinary team, nursing support and autism-specific staff training.
The Committee argued that SOM’s health and behaviour had improved since a private operator took over the current facility in 2021, and that moving could cause distress and a return of serious behaviours. Court records cited recent weight gain: SOM weighed 63.5kg in August 2022, within a healthy range, and his vomiting had improved, though he continued to vomit daily in a managed setting. The judgment also noted increases in shredding and attempts to enter neighbouring cottages.
A report by Positive Behaviour Support Services warned that moving could increase anxiety and trigger vomiting or headbanging, behaviours that had previously posed serious health risks. The judge acknowledged that the transition could be difficult and likely to cause a short-term rise in behaviours. She also considered evidence about SOM’s earlier experience at the proposed facility. The Committee had alleged sexual abuse there in a September 2022 letter; the Brothers of Charity denied abuse. The judge described the evidence about the impact of the earlier placement as mixed and said an expert considered transition possible.
The HSE opposed setting aside the order, arguing that the current placement lacked the nursing and multidisciplinary supports identified as necessary and depended on a private operator whose contract was due to end in March 2024. The judge said the court could not direct the HSE to install the proposed facility’s services at a different location. She concluded that the proposed placement was the lower-risk long-term option, while stressing that risks could not be eliminated.
The court refused the motion. The parties may apply to have costs listed for hearing if necessary.