A troubled and at-risk young girl, with an alcoholic mother and a father who allegedly sexually abused her, was sent to a State detention centre by the High Court yesterday because there was no suitable treatment facility available.
Mr Justice Kelly said the 14-year-old girl was "a child who never had a chance". He described her family background as "probably the worst I have ever seen", but all he could offer the girl, who has no convictions, was an inappropriate place in the detention centre.
The judge also queried why the Children's Bill, which provides for the making of special care orders for such children and which, he noted, has been around in various forms for some three years, has not yet been enacted.
Mr Justice Kelly complained that although health boards have statutory responsibility for the welfare of children, because of the absence of a legislative framework, they have to come to the High Court to get orders detaining such children in secure or other centres. He was dealing with an application by Mr John Edwards SC, for the SEHB, for an order directing the girl be sent to the detention centre.
A board social worker said the girl's mother was supporting the board's application. The girl's father was aware of the application but had not indicated any view on it.
The social worker said the girl had engaged in drug and alcohol abuse and unprotected sex. She had exhibited suicidal thoughts and showed little concern for her personal health and safety.
Last Christmas, the child had taken an overdose and was taken to hospital on Christmas Day.
Last summer, the girl had attended the social worker in a distressed state saying her mother and mother's boyfriend were going drinking and leaving her unsupervised and without food. The girl had done well in a project earlier this year and was seen by a consultant psychiatrist and others. She was referred to a detention centre and it was recommended she should be in a structured environment and receive therapy. She had attended the centre voluntarily and did well there. It was the board's view she should be there.
Mr Peter Finnegan of the SEHB said he believed the girl was at real risk if she was not sent to the detention centre. She was vulnerable to abuse if she was not in a secure environment. Ms Nuala Butler, for the State, agreed with Mr Justice Kelly that it was not in the child's long-term interests to remain in the detention centre. It was hoped to transfer her to a more appropriate facility in March 2000.
The judge said the child was described by a consultant psychiatrist as "the saddest child I have ever met". She needed a place in an appropriate therapeutic centre but the only place he could send her for her own protection was a detention centre. He made that order and returned the matter to February next.
