With “some regret” a judge has ordered a “highly vulnerable” boy to be held in detention, noting it could prevent him accessing the special care he is “crying out for”.
Judge Brendan Toale at Dublin District Children’s Court on Friday said he had “little faith” in Tusla assertions it was considering special care – the most secure form of care – for the boy.
He had to nonetheless consider the fact that legislation put a “fatwa” on Tusla providing special care to a child if they are in Oberstown Children Detention Campus.
He questioned whether the provision in the Childcare Act was in vulnerable children’s best interests.
READ MORE
The teenager, who cannot be identified, has a string of convictions associated with stealing and travelling at high speeds in stolen cars.
Accompanied in court by his father and Tusla social care workers, the boy has been on release from Oberstown since September on bail conditions including that he not travel in stolen vehicles, not have access to a smartphone and keep his curfew.
He has however been missing repeatedly for extended periods and posting on social media. The court heard he had been sleeping rough. He is in voluntary care.
Barrister Noah Rossiter, engaged privately by Tusla due to the ongoing withdrawal of services by criminal aid defence solicitors, said the teenager “accepts his behaviour has been unacceptable”. He applied for what he described as “therapeutic bail” for him.
He noted that under the Childcare Act, if a child is detained in Oberstown, Tusla may not apply to the High Court for an order to detain them in special care.
Tusla social workers had now recommended to the agency’s special care referral committee that the boy be provided with a special care bed, said Rossiter. The committee will consider this on 19th November.
“He is on the cusp of special care and a remand in detention sets all that back to square one,” said Rossiter.
A garda said the boy had shown “total disregard for bail conditions he signed last September.
“It is also for his welfare. He disclosed to me this morning that he is sleeping outside most nights of the week. He is not staying with a roof over his head.”
There had been a “lack of intervention” by the State to safeguard the child “who has been on the radar for quite a considerable period of time,” said the judge. “Special care should have been considered long before and I remain of that opinion”.
Tusla indicated in the past it would apply for a special care order for the boy, but had not.
“I regret to say that I have very little faith in the latest report indicating that there is any real change in the Tusla position,” the judge said.
It was “not for the first time” his court was faced with a situation where it was “largely agreed” a child needed special care but a remand would jeopardise that.
“Obviously if the legislation did not provide this fatwa on applying for special care if someone is remanded in detention, the court would not have to [take this into consideration].
“I have to wonder out loud is it in the best interest of the child to have such a provision.”
He said: “It is with some regret I have to revoke bail on basis of persistent breaches.”
The judge said it remained open to Tusla and the boy’s advisers to reapply for bail. “It still appears to me despite the fact of this court revoking bail, that it is still a case for special care.”
