Girl resists move to put unborn child in care

A vulnerable teenage girl is resisting moves by the Northern Area Health Board to take her unborn child into care. The girl has been in voluntary care since she was 14, has had 14 unsuccessful placements, and her one-year-old son is also in care and has had four placements to date.

A psychiatrist has described as "disastrous" the care received by the 17-year-old girl since she was placed in care.

In the High Court yesterday, Mr Justice Kelly said the facts of the case were "lamentable". He was concerned at the lack of information about how the board planned to manage the imminent birth of the girl's child and he returned the matter to today. The judge also expressed concern at a suggestion there was a risk the father of the two children planned to remove his son from the jurisdiction or that the girl herself might try to leave because she feared her new baby would be taken into care.

He was dealing with an application by lawyers for the girl and her 14-month-old son for orders directing the board to provide appropriate care and accommodation for them. The girl is also opposing a proposal by the board to take her unborn child into care at birth.

The judge granted leave to Mr Cormac Corrigan SC, for the girl, to seek orders directing the board and State to provide appropriate care and accommodation for the girl and her son. After hearing that the girl had booked into three maternity hospitals and that the board appeared to be unaware of the arrangements for her child's imminent birth, he also granted injunctions restraining the girl and her son from leaving the jurisdiction and an injunction restraining the father of the two children from taking the mother or her son from the jurisdiction.

The court was told the girl was placed in voluntary care by her mother at 14 and had 14 placements since. She had experienced physical abuse, neglect and abandonment.

In an affidavit, the girl's solicitor said none of the 14 placements for the girl had met her needs. These included a series of bed-and-breakfasts she had to leave during the day.

The solicitor said that, as a result of the inadequate care, the girl became pregnant and had a son in early 2000. The child was taken into interim care by the board when he was one week old. The girl and her child were placed together in another unit when the baby was six weeks old but that placement broke down after 10 days. The solicitor said the manager of that unit had said it was not surprising the girl could not appropriately parent her son because she had never experienced appropriate parenting herself. On leaving the unit, the girl was again homeless. This led to legal proceedings to compel the board to provide a care plan.

On April 13th 2000, the board was ordered to prepare a care plan as soon as possible, but the plan was not produced until November 2000. The girl's court-appointed guardian regarded this plan as failing to address the girl's needs.

The guardian said the girl's situation continued to deteriorate and she spent most of her time on the streets, often exposed to high levels of risk. She was charged with soliciting. She became pregnant with her second child and was due to give birth soon.

A psychiatrist had assessed the girl for the board and reported she had been in need of a highly therapeutic programme of care since at least 1998. The psychiatrist described as "disastrous" the provision of care for the girl from 1997 and described the girl as feeling helpless, abandoned and incompetent to take charge of her life. The court was told the girl was now in a unit where, the solicitor said, the staff were unqualified to provide therapeutic services or family skills. The board had not provided any adequate response to requests for information about staff qualifications or about provision for the girl.

While steps were taken to secure a vocational educational placement and to arrange a parenting programme, the guardian believed this could succeed only within the context of an integrated therapeutic plan. The guardian believed the girl's prospects of being able to parent her son and new baby depended more on her own personal and emotional development than her attendance at any parenting programme. The girl had only minimal contact with her son at present.

The solicitor said the girl was in a long-term relationship with the father of her two children and both recognised they required support to enable effective parenting.