A Garda superintendent wrote to a HSE social worker last week saying gardaí had no power to stop Miss D travelling to Britain for an abortion, the High Court has heard. The letter was written in response to a letter from the social worker stating the teenager "must be prevented from travelling".
In an affidavit, the social worker said he had phoned the superintendent as he was concerned Miss D would leave the jurisdiction in the near future and would travel to Britain to terminate her pregnancy.
The superintendent asked him to put that in writing and, in a follow-up letter on April 26th, the social worker outlined the facts of Miss D's case and that she was adamant she wanted to travel to Britain for an abortion.
He believed Miss D would attempt to travel and "must be prevented from travelling".
In a reply that same day, the superintendent said gardaí were not permitted to detain a child in care without a warrant under the Child Care Act and he believed a court order preventing the girl travelling to Britain and absconding from care was required.
In his affidavit, the social worker said Miss D had been admitted to hospital in January after a suspected overdose. She claimed to have taken 20 anti-depressant tablets and told the social worker she did it in front of her mother to get attention. She claimed her mother left the house and Miss D then phoned for help and was brought to hospital. It was then she learned she was pregnant.
After her scan of April 23rd, which revealed her baby was suffering from anencephaly, the social worker said that all at the HSE "gave every support" to Miss D. He had met her, her boyfriend and the boyfriend's mother.
The social worker said the girl wanted an abortion, her family was collecting money to fund this and she would have to apply for a passport. He had told her he had to "take legal advice as there were complex legal questions".
He believed he was sympathetic to Miss D and the meeting ended amicably.
On April 26th, he told Miss D he was still waiting for legal advice. He told her the HSE wished to do a psychiatric assessment. He was mindful that she had taken an overdose in January.
She seemed a "lot less distressed" than on the previous occasion. A psychiatrist assessed her and told him she was not suicidal but had "an acute stress reaction" to the diagnosis in relation to her baby.
The social worker said Miss D was offered a bed for a few nights but there was no suggestion by anybody that she be committed to a psychiatric hospital.
In its statement, the HSE said the welfare of the girl was its primary consideration.
Eoghan Fitzsimons SC, for Miss D, said the HSE had made "a straightforward case" which, he understood, was that she was in its care and that was "the beginning and the end of it" . The HSE also argued it was right to take the action it did.
While the HSE, on taking Miss D into care, had a responsibility to her, this was different from "the additional right" to prevent her travelling abroad. The HSE was constrained by the care order which was limited to protection.
Asked was it being contended that the HSE was the sole determining agent as regards the girl's welfare, Mr Fitzsimons said the HSE was making that case and that it had done what it felt was its duty. His argument was that the HSE has misconstrued the law.
Gerry Durcan SC, for the HSE, said its position was that it was not open to the girl to travel "in the situation she was in" without the consent and authority of the District Court under the Child Care Act.