State opposing legal move over troubled children

The State is opposing an application for a High Court order to compel the Minister for Health and Children to adhere to his plan to provide, by the end of next year, some 50 additional high-support places for troubled children in areas other than the Eastern Health Board.

Some at-risk children have probably suffered further damage because of the lack of such places, it was conceded in court yesterday by a senior Department of Education official.

The application for the injunction was taken yesterday on behalf of a number of at-risk children by Mr Gerry Durcan SC, with Mr John Hanlon, and is expected to conclude today before Mr Justice Kelly. Mr Durcan said there had been "culpable slippage" by the Minister for Health in meeting targets for building high-support units and that troubled children were suffering as a result.

Counsel said he would be happy with an undertaking from the Minister that the units would be built according to the timescale outlined and he would be reasonable where delays arose which could not be avoided. However, he needed some assurance that the constitutional rights of these children, declared almost five years ago by the courts, would finally be met by the State.

However, Mr Paul O'Higgins SC, with Mr Feichin McDonagh SC, for the State, said he could not give such an undertaking and was opposing the application. While the Minister was committed to the implementation of the programme to provide high-support places, he did not consider it was an appropriate matter for an injunction or undertaking.

Counsel argued that the court was intervening in a matter of executive policy, to which Mr Justice Kelly replied that all he was seeking to do was ensure the Minister kept his word. Earlier, Mr Ruairi O Cillin, a divisional inspector of special education schools with the Department of Education, agreed with Mr Durcan that some troubled children had probably suffered damage through lack of appropriate facilities. He agreed there was an urgent need for additional places for areas outside the EHB. He said the Department of Health had made reasonable efforts to provide places but there were difficulties.

He agreed that if a 16-year-old boy, whose case had been before the court, had had a high-support facility available to him years earlier, he might not have deteriorated to the position he was in today, but there was no guarantee of that, Mr O Cillin said. He agreed that some of the child plaintiffs who had had spent time in high-support units did very well. He also agreed that the opening of the units at Balldowd and Portane this year and next year would help the situation.

Mr O Cillin said that since the court declared such children had constitutional rights to residential care a number of high-support units had been opened. In an affidavit, Mr O Cillin said all the child applicants in the present action were availing of services provided by the State or the EHB. One of the children was an exceptionally difficult case, but the arrangements for the others appeared adequate. He believed the Department of Health was committed to provide the resources required to acquire sites, begin building works and provide for staffing and other costs. While there had been delays, he believed these were neither unwarranted nor unjustifiable.