A disturbed teenage girl, who has spent some months in an acute adult psychiatric hospital because there is no appropriate place for her, is to be moved back to a high-support unit next week, the High Court directed yesterday.
The 15-year-old girl had originally absconded from the high-support unit, which is operated by her local health board, and then took an overdose of ecstasy tablets and alcohol from which she almost died. In the absence of any appropriate secure facility, and although not mentally ill, she was sent to the adult psychiatric unit. Subsequently, she moved to a State remand centre but became upset there, apparently because a member of the staff reminded her of her father who had sexually abused her. She was moved back to the psychiatric hospital where she has remained since.
The girl's case has been before the High Court on a number of occasions and Mr Justice Kelly criticised the "disgraceful" failure of the State to provide suitable care and accommodation for her and other disturbed children.
Early last month, Mr Cormac Corrigan SC, for the health board involved, applied for the girl to remain in the psychiatric unit while the board finalised a care plan that would lead to her being moved back to the facility from which she had absconded.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Kelly was given details of the care plan and he fixed next Thursday for the removal of the girl from the psychiatric unit to the original three-bed care unit.
The judge said the girl had been detained since March in the psychiatric unit, which was substandard to her needs. In making such an observation, he stressed he intended no criticism of the hospital or the staff who had been asked to undertake a role which they should not have been asked to undertake.
Under the care plan submitted by the health board, the girl would be moved back to a unit where she would be supervised by two staff members and there would be a programme which would have a substantial therapeutic input from a psychiatrist and an addiction counsellor, he noted.
He pointed out that, in the psychiatric hospital, there were no educational facilities for the girl and said this was highly undesirable. When she settled back in the high-support unit, she would receive 11 hours of tuition per week from a secondary school teacher. He was satisfied the unit was being made as secure as possible. It was not a prison or a jail. The girl would be supervised.
Mr Justice Kelly said a concern had been raised that the girl would be in the company of another girl, aged almost 18 years, who had been involved in the taking of drugs and that this girl might have an adverse affect on the 15-year-old.
Having heard evidence from the manager of the care facility, the judge said he felt the adverse influence would be minimised. He believed it was appropriate to authorise the move to the high-support unit.