Teenager in care may be moved to holiday cottage because of lack of secure care beds

A teenage boy in care may be sent to live in a holiday cottage in the northwest with two care workers because there is no secure accommodation available for him, the Dublin District Family Court heard yesterday.

Judge Sinéad Ní Chulacháin said at a time when everyone else was going back to school, the teenager could be in a holiday cottage with no access to education, counselling or other supports that he needed.

“Children are taken into care to receive the care and protection they wouldn’t receive at home; [the teenager] is not getting the care and protection he is entitled to,” she said.

A clinical psychologist had said the teenager needed therapy, but that it should be provided in a secure setting. He recommended more than two weeks ago that the Child and Family Agency apply for a place in a secure care unit for the boy.

The teenager is in an open residential unit for now but authorities there are no longer willing to keep him after he allegedly sexually assaulted a female care worker last weekend. He had also been absconding regularly and returning under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

Secure care committee

Earlier this week, the agency told the judge a meeting of its secure care committee could be held by teleconference yesterday to discuss the case and decide on a placement for the teenager. However in court yesterday, a solicitor for the agency said the committee did not discuss the teenager because it would have been “academic” as there were no secure beds available. It would not meet again until next Tuesday, he said.

Giving evidence, the social worker said there might be a place available in a different residential unit today, but it was not a secure unit and if another teenager, for whom it was earmarked, took it up it would not be available. In that case, the boy would have to go to the cottage and she did not know how long he would be there.

A safety plan for the teenager was produced in court, but the judge described it as obsolete as it referred to the residential unit he was now having to leave.

The judge also asked why the boy would be sent to a cottage with two male care workers when it had been identified that male staff were a trigger for his aggressive behaviour. The social worker acknowledged it was “not ideal”.

“It is an awful long way short of not ideal,” Judge Ní Chulacháin said.

She said she wanted whoever was responsible for deciding not to hold the secure care committee meeting to come to court and explain why it was not held.

The committee with “statutory responsibility” in the case “can’t be bothered to meet” because they did not have the places so they had not assessed the urgency of the situation, she said.

“Which bit of urgent and immediate doesn’t apply in this case? Have the Child and Family Agency some completely different definition of urgent than the rest of us?” she asked.

Meeting today

The case was adjourned for an hour for the agency to provide the name of the person who was responsible for the decision.

However, when the agency solicitor returned, he said it had been decided a meeting of the committee would be held today to discuss the teenager’s situation.

Judge Ní Chulacháin adjourned the case to next week pending the outcome of that meeting. She said she wanted to know what progress was made on a new safety plan for the teenager and regarding counselling, welfare and education.