A High Court judge yesterday urged a 15-year-old mildly mentally handicapped "at-risk" boy to co-operate with a drug-treatment and care programme and not to break his parents' hearts.
Mr Justice Kelly praised the boy, who the court heard has in recent days been co-operating with the programme, but stressed that his future was up to himself.
"If you choose not to co-operate, you are signing your own death warrant," the judge said. The boy indicated he would continue to co-operate with arrangements put in place for his care by the Eastern Health Board.
The court was told that on Friday, July 24th, the boy had consumed an excess of alcohol and suffered a seizure. He was taken to the Mater Hospital the following day.
This occurred before the coming into effect of a curfew imposed on him by the court, and other special care arrangements, including EHB staff members staying in his home until early in the morning, and daily attendance at a drug-treatment programme. The curfew was aimed at preventing him getting drugs, including heroin.
Yesterday the judge was told the EHB was proposing those special care arrangements should continue. There was no secure accommodation available, counsel for the board said.
Dr Eamon Keenan, who is in charge of a programme for adolescent drug-users at Fortune House, said the boy had been attending that programme since July 21st and was co-operating quite well. He was providing regular urine samples. These initially indicated heroin misuse and the last two were negative for heroin but positive for methadone which he got on the street.
Asked about the prognosis, Dr Keenan said there were positive and negative factors. It was positive that the boy had admitted using drugs. The negative factors were a history of opiate abuse by siblings and the boy's history of conduct disorder.
Dr Keenan said he expected the boy's urine to be completely clear next week. His future prognosis depended on his co-operation and the supports available.
A social worker with the board said the boy was co-operating well with the existing programme but the board was still concerned about his physical safety.
Mr Gerry Durcan SC, for the boy, said the court remained in an extremely unsatisfactory situation. There were certain risks underlying the whole arrangement for the boy but there was no other option. Even if the court wished to send the boy to a secure unit, there was none available.
Mr Justice Kelly made an order that the existing regime put in place for the boy by the EHB should continue. He put the case in for review before him on August 17th but gave the parties liberty to apply in the meantime.
