AN ANALYSIS of investigations by the Ombudsman for Children into decisions made by public bodies involving children makes for disturbing reading. The report, prepared by Dr Ursula Kilkelly of University College Cork, explores key case studies ranging from the provision of appropriate social housing for a disabled boy to the care of a young person who died while in the hands of the Health Service Executive. Overall, it reveals that children are “largely invisible” when it comes to decisions which profoundly affect their lives.
Too often, officials are found to be insensitive to the needs or rights of children and their families. Instead, there is an excessive focus by faceless bureaucrats on applying inflexible rules without seeking to understand the realities facing children on the ground.
This kind of approach to decision-making can be highly damaging. Decisions which deprive children of education, separate them from parents or fail to provide vital therapeutic services can have profound and life-long consequences. In exceptional cases, the very lives of children may be at risk. In one tragic case highlighted in the report, the Health Service Executive was criticised for its failures in its handling of a 14-year-old boy who died while in State care. The boy’s mental health needs were unmet, insufficient attention was given to the boy’s views about his care placement, and a threat that he would hang himself was not addressed comprehensively. He later took his own life.
In other cases highlighted in the report there were positive outcomes eventually following the intervention of the Ombudsman. But in too many instances, change came far too slowly due to the adversarial stance adopted by State bodies. This is highly revealing. If the State’s watchdog for children has difficulties engaging with public bodies, then what chance do vulnerable children and their families have of getting their rights vindicated?
Clearly, we need to reform the way State bodies deal with children and their families. This kind of change does not necessarily require extra resources. As the Ombudsman noted, the attitude and culture that underpins how we engage with children is, arguably, more fundamental. There is much that we can do to change this. Access to independent ways of appealing decisions or making complaints is vital. Furthermore, the long-promised referendum on children’s rights would go some way to ensuring the voice of children is heard and taken seriously at the highest levels.
In the absence of this kind of change, attitudes will stay the same and gaps in services will remain. Young people will continue to remain invisible in the eyes of decision-makers. And children under strain, who sometimes need only the simplest forms of support, will come to the attention of health authorities when it is too late.
We need simple, yet urgent, reforms to change the way the State helps and supports children. The calls have been made before, with scant evidence of proper action. The voice of a new generation of vulnerable children cannot be ignored any longer.