Child agency criticised for 'wholly unsatisfactory' response to court orders

Ray Managh

A High Court judge has described the Child and Family Agency’s attitude to judicial orders as “incomprehensible and wholly unsatisfactory".

Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds criticised the State agency responsible for the protection and welfare of children in Ireland after hearing that it had failed to comply with the suggestions of two District Court judges with regard to the care of a child.

Judge Reynolds heard that recommendations by both judges regarding the care of a teenager at risk of death by his own hand and a danger to others had been totally ignored by Tusla.

“This is an extremely vulnerable young person whose medical history speaks for itself,” Judge Reynolds told barrister Donal O Muircheartaigh, counsel for the child’s legal guardian

Mr O Muircheartaigh, who appeared with David McCoy of McCoy Solicitors, had outlined the teenager’s difficult early childhood recalling that he had been in seven different placements prior to his current placement having been secured for him in June 2024.

He said this placement had come to an end today Friday and the boy was being moved to a centre that both his guardian and the District Court had only yesterday, Thursday, raised concerns about.

Mr O MuircheartaighI detailed previous very serious reports from the boy’s treating medical experts which had highlighted the high risk of death from suicide and pointed out to Judge Reynolds that special care had been specifically prescribed for him.

Counsel went through “the chaotic recent few weeks” where the direction of a District Court judge for a special care referral had initially been ignored and cited two District Court judges’ recent concern at the breadth of the risk laid bare in professional reports and particularly one judge’s view that he had never seen a report as concerning to the District Court.

Mr O Muircheartaigh told Judge Reynolds that in light of the fact that the Child Family Agency did not seem to attach much weight to District Court orders, it was necessary to have the heft of the High Court’s oversight to see if a more expeditious and timely change for the teenager could be arranged.

“It is important to bring this particular to the Croke Park of courts as opposed to the regional grounds where change is not occurring fast enough,” counsel said.

The court queried the current state of affairs on the “no beds list” as monitored by the High Court and Mr O Muircheartaigh said there were currently 26 physical beds in special care with a capacity to staff only 15 of them.

There were four children on the list who had an order registered against them that they require the safety and security of special care but had not been allocated a bed. They were also very serious cases.

Judge Reynolds said it was hard to find a more apt case for special care and returned the proceedings to August 20th directing that the matter was of such urgency, because of the potential detriment to the child, that it could be re-entered before that date on notice to Tusla.

The judge directed that the Child Family Agency be notified immediately of her directions and asked that the Agency be informed that she was astonished to note its failure to comply with a judicial direction

A District Court judge recently condemned Tusla’s handling of its duty and obligations toward children in its care and described such practice as “shocking and appalling.”