BOY SENT HOME DUE TO LACK OF SUITABLE DETENTION

A high court judge said yesterday that he had to send a "very vulnerable"
and "out of control" boy, who has a drug problem, back to his family home
because there was no suitable place available for him.

Mr Justice Kelly made the order in respect of the 15-year-old boy after
hearing there was no place for him at Oberstown House or St Michael's House
because both were full, and that two other juvenile centres, Newtown House
and Killinarden, would not take him because of his drug-taking.

The governor of St Patrick's Institution also told the court that his
institution was designed for 16- to 21-year-olds, there was no place to
segregate the boy and he could not guarantee he would not be exposed to
drugs.

In his ruling on the matter, Mr Justice Kelly pointed out that in June last
year he had directed that another boy at risk be detained in St Patrick's,
for assessment purposes, because no other place was available. His decision
was upheld by the Supreme Court.

At that time, he had commented that the case was yet another where the
court had to exercise its jurisdiction to protect the rights of minors
because of the failure of the State to provide funding for their needs.

He had said it was "common case" that what was needed was a secure unit for
such children but no such unit existed in the State and he had to do the
best he could with what was available.

"A year has passed and I find myself in precisely the same situation," the
judge said.

In the present case, he was dealing with a minor who was living with his
parents, who were well-motivated but had lost control of him.

During the day the boy was supervised by Eastern Health Board staff. He
suffered from tiredness because he was at large at night. He was also
involved in drug-taking. The boy was "quite clearly out of control", the
judge said. He accepted evidence the boy was "very vulnerable".

It was "as clear as crystal" that what was needed was a secure unit with
therapeutic facilities and a preliminary assessment also needed to be
carried out. In the course of such an assessment, it would be in the
minor's interest that he be protected from drugs.

He said the EHB has facilities at Newtown House and Killinarden but both
were understandably reluctant to take children with drug problems because
they did not have the facilities to deal with them and it would cause
disruption of programmes for the other residents.

There were State institutions - St Michael's House and Oberstown. However,
both were full. The judge said he had just directed that another troubled
minor be sent to Oberstown and that had filled the last vacancy.

There was also St Patrick's Institution. It was not suitable for minors
although sometimes it was the only option available. He would consider it
in the present case if he knew the minor would be kept drug-free. But he
had been told by the governor this could not be guaranteed and there was no
facility to segregate him from convicted criminals.

Wheatfield Prison was also a possibility, but he did not consider it
appropriate. There were two or three other 15-year-olds held there, but
only because they were so unruly and depraved they could not be held
elsewhere.

In circumstances where none of the institutions catered for the needs of
the boy, the judge said he must keep him in his present position. In the
short term this might do less damage than to put him in St Patrick's or
Wheatfield.

The judge said he attached weight to the fact that a psychiatric assessment
of the boy was presently under way by the EHB and the boy was co-operating
with that. He listed the matter again for Friday next and gave liberty to
all sides to apply.

Checked-by: (Joel W. Johnson)