Parents failed to turn up - EHB

As the whereabouts of the 13-year-old pregnant girl at the centre of the C case remained unclear last night, the Eastern Health Board issued a strongly-worded statement rebutting allegations that it had prevented access to the girl by her parents.

It said that yesterday the board had made arrangements on two separate occasions for the parents, and other family members, to meet the girl, but they had not turned up. "The parents stated that they were unavailable to meet with their daughter for the first meeting and they failed to turn up for a second offered meeting," the statement said.

It reiterated that the board "categorically refutes allegations that it has at any time in any way prevented, discouraged, or denied access by the parents to the child". It could not allow unfounded allegations about difficulty in gaining access to the child in their care go unchallenged, the statement continued.

The allegations were "totally at variance with the facts of the case", it said, and in all child-care cases its objective was to protect the well-being and welfare of the child and that it tried to work as closely as possible with the parents and family to achieve this.

Responding to a statement issued by the Pro-life Campaign, the board said it had "never decided on or sought an abortion for the child, or in any way influenced her decision in this matter". It pointed out that the State had appointed a separate legal team to represent the girl's wishes and interests, and that all the issues relating to medical assessments were dealt with by the Children's Court and subsequently by the High Court.

For the board to do other than comply with directives from the courts would be in breach of court orders, it said, "and given that the child is in the board's care, the board is obliged to make necessary arrangements to give effect to the decisions and directions of the court".

The statement ended with an appeal for privacy "for the young girl so tragically at the centre of this matter", now that constitutional issues surrounding the case had been resolved, and "which were of legitimate public interest".