Care unit unable to cope with boy (12)

An extremely disturbed 12-year-old boy with no criminal convictions, who has been in care since the age of five and has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), is to be moved from the Ballydowd Special Care Unit for disturbed children to a State remand centre because Ballydowd can't deal with him.

At the High Court yesterday Mr Justice O'Higgins sanctioned the boy's move after a lengthy hearing during which lawyers for the State, the deputy director of Oberstown Boys' Centre and a forensic psychologist who has worked with the boy for a considerable time expressed grave reservations about moving the child and opposed the proposal.

However, the move was sought by the Northern Area Health Board and supported by the manager of Ballydowd, a social work team leader and a clinical psychiatrist who had assessed the boy over a half-hour period and consulted the Ballydowd staff on the proposed move.

Oberstown is full at present, but the boy will be moved for a three-week period when a place becomes available. The judge noted that Oberstown had expresed concern that previous applications by health boards to send disturbed children to the unit for "respite" had sometimes led to the children remaining for periods of years and stressed that this must be only a three-week period.

The court heard that the boy was moved to Ballydowd in September 2001 and had had periods of doing very well. However, in recent weeks he had been involved in a number of serious incidents, including one where he threatened a staff member with an electric carving knife. He had caused €15,000-€20,000 worth of damage to the unit through episodes where he flooded his room, broke televisions and threatened staff with broken glass. He had also kicked and bitten staff members and was said to have episodes where he went into "a frenzy".

The board argued that a move to Oberstown for a short period might act as a "check" on the boy's behaviour. The court was told staff were unable to cope with him, and he represented a danger to himself, other children in Ballydowd and staff.

Dr Brian Sweeney, a consultant psychiatrist who assessed the boy on November 18th, said he was out of control and a danger. He believed Ballydowd staff could not cope with the boy and that Oberstown staff were better equipped to deal with him. The intention was to break the boy's current pattern of behaviour.

However, Mr Michael Woodlock, deputy director of Oberstown, said he believed the centre was not appropriate for a damaged 12-year-old child with no criminal convictions.

"These kids are damaged," he said. "It would be very unusual for them to go through a long placement without one or two crises occurring. The real skills lie in working through that crisis with the child and putting them in a position where they are better able to cope with crises."

His experience of dealing with damaged children was that crises did not come out of the blue but were prompted by some event, Mr Woodlock added.

He had heard no evidence about what crisis had prompted this boy's behaviour other than possible frustration at not being moved in the summer from Ballydowd to a stepdown facility where he might foster his positive relationship with animals.

If the boy was moved to Oberstown he would be among the youngest there, the average age of the other boys being 14 years and 10 months, and would be mixing with boys who had criminal convictions and a history of repeat offending.

He would be in a unit with seven other boys who had a history of involvement in assault, larceny and car theft.

Mr Woodlock added that the intention and spirit of the new Children's Act was to get to a stage where only children who had criminal convictions would be held in Oberstown. He also pointed out the child-staff ratio in Oberstown was less than in Ballydowd, and there was a higher risk of absconding.

Mr Ian Gargan, a forensic psychologist, said he had seen the boy on a weekly basis for several months and later on a fortnightly basis. He believed neither Ballydowd nor Oberstown was suitable for his needs, but the former was a better option than the latter.

Mr Gargan said the care system had failed this child, and another move now could be interpreted by the boy as another rejection.

Giving his decision, Mr Justice O'Higgins said the boy's behaviour in recent weeks had given very serious cause for concern and the situation at Ballydowd was extremely difficult. He was satisfied there were genuine differences of opinion as to what was best for the child and that all involved with him were working very hard on his behalf.

The judge said Mr Woodlock was a very impressive witness and it was "disappointing, regrettable and generally unhelpful" that, prior to coming to court, Ballydowd had not consulted with Oberstown about the proposal to send the child there.

Having considered all the evidence, the judge said while there were difficulties in doing anything regarding the child, the situation at Ballydowd was "well-nigh intolerable" and he would direct the boy be placed in Oberstown for three weeks.