The outcome of a High Court action taken by a youth suffering from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) could have important implications for the State's obligations regarding the education of children with disabilities.
In the action, which opened yesterday, it is claimed that Richard Clare (17), with an address in Waterford city, has become a "social recluse" because of the State's alleged failure to provide early and appropriate therapies and education and intervention for him.
Mr Paul Sreenan SC, for Richard, said the case raised important issues regarding the State's obligations under the Education Act, 1998, the Equal Status Act, 2000, and the Constitution in the provision of education for children with disabilities.
While the Supreme Court, in its majority judgment in the action taken on behalf of an autistic man, Mr Jamie Sinnott, had said it was not appropriate for the courts to make mandatory orders against the State for breach of constitutional rights, the situation could be different in a case where there was a breach of statutory rights, counsel said. This was such a case.
Some children needed more help than others along the road of life, and the Constitution required the State to cherish all the children of the nation equally, counsel said.
The situation regarding the State's provision of education for the disabled had improved, but some children still "fell through the cracks". His case was that the education options offered by the State for Richard were not appropriate.
The case opened yesterday before Mr Justice Smyth, who was told it could run for three weeks. The State is denying breach of rights and pleads it has made considerable efforts to address the youth's situation.
Opening the action, Mr Sreenan said ADHD was a condition first identified in 1902 and recognised for some decades. It occurred disproportionately in males. Those with ADHD had difficulty sustaining attention and control of impulses and showed excessive activity levels.
Failure to intervene could leave a sufferer damaged for life in relation to their ability to cope with the ordinary problems of life.
In this case, he was contending there was a failure to intervene early and appropriately and to provide appropriate education and therapies for Richard.
This had caused the boy to be significantly damaged. From being a boy in mainstream education with a lot of friends, he had been expelled, no appropriate alternative had been provided for him and he had become a social recluse.
Counsel said Richard's parents noted that as a child he was easily frustrated, had poor concentration and was very giddy. He was a late walker and talker. He went to St Declan's National School in Waterford, run by the De La Salle Brothers, from 1990 to 1998.
The school complained that he was disruptive. In fifth class, his parents discussed his behaviour with the school principal, who suggested he be seen by a social worker. That did not occur until the following year when the social worker described his problems as due to immaturity.
In 1998 Richard began attending a child psychologist and the same year started attending the De La Salle college in Waterford, a secondary school.
In 1999 he was diagnosed with ADHD by a clinical psychiatrist with the South Eastern Health Board. He was then 13 years old. It was noted that he was verbally bright and intelligent with a high IQ, but he had oppositional behaviour and a poor self image.
Richard had initially responded well to medication but later took too much of it and was hospitalised.
He was essentially expelled in 2000 just as he was about to begin his Junior Cert year. His parents pleaded with the school to readmit him but it refused. The board of management had said it was up to the Department to provide the necessary resources.
The case continues today.
