A 12-year-old troubled and mildly mentally handicapped child, who is having violent sexual fantasies about female staff at a State remand centre, has to remain in that centre because there is no appropriate place for him, the High Court heard yesterday.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly said the child's problems were of "a very profound type" and the remand centre where he is currently detained is not helpful to him.
He said the most appropriate place for the boy was an institution in Birmingham, but it had just been established there was no legal basis on which the child could be sent there.
The Southern Health Board had thought the child could be placed in the Birmingham institution and had been trying since April to secure his transfer. However, Mr Aongus O Brolchain, for the board, told the judge yesterday it appeared, from recent legal opinion, that the Birmingham institution was not available for the boy, as the SHB did not have the legal standing to apply for the boy to be treated.
It had been thought Birmingham Social Services could make an application on the SHB's behalf, but it could not as the child was not resident in England. The problem was compounded because the English courts did not have similar powers to the Irish courts on troubled children.
Mr O Brolchain said an institute in Manchester could assess the child with a view to having him admitted to a psychiatric unit in England. Such units included persons with mental handicap.
Another option was for staff from the Birmingham institution to come to Ireland and train staff of the remand centre where the child is held in methods of treatment for children with his problems.
Mr Gerard Durcan SC, for the child, said they had spent four months waiting for an option for the child that could never have been put in place because there was never the jurisdiction to make the necessary orders.
There was a clear statutory obligation on the SHB to provide appropriate care for the child and a clear constitutional obligation on the State to provide appropriate treatment. The boy could not be left sitting in the remand centre because it was not appropriate.
Ms Iseult O'Malley, for the State, said it had paid for the Birmingham option to be explored and funding was still available for the child. The State would be interested in the possibility of training staff at the centre. However, she cautioned that this could require another building on the remand centre campus.
Mr Justice Kelly said he was under the impression up to yesterday that all that remained to be done to procure the child's transfer to Birmingham was to get the consent of the Secretary of State for Home Affairs in the UK. He understood that no child of this age could be put in secure accommodation in England without such consent.
However, a problem was very recently identified concerning the legal standing of the SHB to pursue the application. The opinion of senior counsel on this issue was clear and unequivocal: there was no legal basis on which the child could be held in the Birmingham institution.
The judge added there was no basis on which the English courts could assume jurisdiction in the matter because the child was not ordinarily resident in England.
Mr Justice Kelly adjourned the matter for another week.