Overcrowded centre to take in vulnerable boy

A State-run remand centre, which yesterday said it had no room for a vulnerable 15-year-old boy, later agreed to admit him after a High Court judge said he might have to send him to the Central Mental Hospital. The High Court was told that the District Court had yesterday made an order directing the boy be detained at the remand centre, although the district judge was told no place was available there.

Lawyers for the boy, and his mother, then went to the High Court where they said he could not be controlled at home and expressed concern for his safety if he was turned away from the centre and put back on the streets.

Mr Justice Peter Kelly was told the boy had been doing well with a particular project but his situation had deteriorated in recent weeks and he was no longer staying at home regularly.

When the judge indicated he was considering St Patrick's Institution for the boy, its deputy governor, Mr William Kane, said it was not a suitable place for any 15-year-old, as there was "enormous overcrowding", with 211 inmates in the 167-bed institution yesterday.

Mr Kane said the boy would have to sleep on a mattress if remanded to St Patrick's. He said no penal institution was appropriate for such children.

Mr Justice Kelly said the only place he could think of was the Central Mental Hospital, as it was apparent that putting him into St Patrick's would enhance the danger to him.

The child had to be somewhere and could not go home. The boy's mother opposed the CMH as an option.

Counsel for the EHB and the State indicated it was the social workers' view the boy should continue with the project which he had been attending despite the recent difficulties.

Mr Justice Kelly told counsel it was not good enough for their clients to adopt an attitude of "leave well enough alone and it will be grand". He was not impressed by "the bureaucratic attitude that says it's someone else' s responsibility".

The judge then adjourned for a short time, to allow the EHB and the State to investigate options. When the court resumed, he was told that the remand centre had agreed to take him on foot of a High Court order.

Mr Justice Kelly said he was grateful for the efforts made and ordered the detention of the child at the centre.

In a separate case, the judge directed that a 16-year-old troubled boy sent to St Patrick's Institution six weeks ago because there was no suitable place for him should be released tomorrow. The judge made the order after he was told the EHB had organised a programme in a residential centre in the country for five days a week and at weekends the boy would attend a project in Dublin during the daytime from home.

Mr Gerry Durcan SC, for the boy, said his father had indicated he would do his best to try and ensure the child, who has a history of drug taking, stayed out of trouble while at home.

Counsel said there was considerable risk in the proposal and the judge noted that such arrangements had broken down before. Mr Durcan said he hoped other options would continue to be investigated.

Mr Patrick MacEntee SC, for the EHB, said that would be done but much depended on the boy's co-operation.

Mr Justice Kelly said it was his view the boy's continued detention in St Patrick's was not legally permitted. He said the boy had shown a lamentable failure to co-operate to date, whether that was of his own making or because of a particular condition.

He asked the boy's father and lawyers to make it clear to him that his prospects were poor and bleak if he failed to co-operate with this latest arrangement. There was little point in continually bringing the case back to court and asking it to make orders to put him in institutions that did not exist.

The EHB proposal involved the boy returning for a time to his family - which in the past had shown it could not control him and where he had engaged in action to his detriment and possible demise, the judge added. This was an option high in risk but he had no alternative.