`Paralysis of policy' on aiding children at risk, court told

The State's failure to provide safe accommodation for children at risk has "potentially fatal" consequences, the High Court was told yesterday. Some 60 children are at risk in the Eastern Health Board area alone but there are only 18 places available for them, Mr Gerry Durcan SC said.

He was applying for an order directing the State to make available sufficient funding to allow the opening of a 24-bed high-support unit for troubled children in Portrane, Co Dublin.

The proceedings, taken by a 15year-old boy against the Ministers for Justice, Health, Education, the State and the Eastern Health Board, concluded yesterday and Mr Justice Kelly reserved judgment.

During yesterday's hearing, the judge asked Mr Aindreas O Caoimh SC, for the Minister for Health, if the Minister was prepared to give an undertaking to make sufficient funding available for the building of the Portrane unit.

After taking instructions, counsel said he could not give such an undertaking because the Minister could not bind the Minister for Finance or future governments. The Minister intended the Portrane unit to proceed and there was no objection to the court reviewing the matter on an ongoing basis.

In submissions, Mr Durcan, representing the boy, who is currently detained in Oberstown House, said there had been "a paralysis of policy" regarding the provision of suitable accommodation for children at risk.

Although the High Court had found over three years ago that the State had a constitutional obligation to provide for the special needs of such children, little had been done in the interim, he said.

The effect of the breach of rights of the children involved was "potentially fatal" in some cases and in virtually all cases it would affect their future lives. O Murchu, solicitor for the boy, said the child has been in great need for secure accommodation in an HSU for the past three years. On occasions, he had sought admission to a special care unit operated by the EHB but no vacancies were available. Mr O Murchu said the difficulty in securing secure high support accommodation for the boy was similar to that which has occurred in many other cases in which he had been involved. There was, and continues to be, a "chronic shortage" of places.

In evidence from Ms Brid Clarke, of the EHB, the court heard that the board had submitted a planning proposal to the Department of Health for the development of two units for vulnerable children - a special care unit and a high-support unit - in September 1996.

She said the Department became concerned about the cost of the units and whether there would be an over-provision of beds.

Ms Clarke said the Department had decided to proceed with two special care (detention) units, one at Ballydowd, Lucan, and the other in Portrane. The board was informed on July 15th that the Department had changed its mind and was now proposing a high-support unit in Portrane.