Social worker contacted gardaí in concern for Miss D’s future

A GARDA Superintendent wrote to a HSE social worker last week and told him the gardaí had no power to stop the 17-year-old girl travelling to Britain for an abortion.

In a letter on April 26, the Superintendent said the gardaí are not permitted to detain a child in care without a warrant under the Child Care Act.

In his view, the Superintendent said, a court order preventing the girl travelling to Britain and absconding from care was required.

The social worker in his affidavit explained he had contacted a Garda Superintendent as he was concerned the girl would leave the jurisdiction in the near future.

He said he had phoned the Garda Superintendent initially and expressed his concern Miss D would leave the jurisdiction to terminate her pregnancy.

In a follow-up letter the social worker outlined the facts of Miss D’s case and said she was adamant she wanted to travel for an abortion. The social worker said he believed Miss D would attempt to travel and “she must be prevented from travelling”.

In his affidavit, the social worker said Miss D had been admitted to a hospital in January this year after a suspected overdose. She claimed to have taken 20 anti-depressant tables and told the social worker she did it in front of her mother to seek her mother’s attention. Her mother she claimed left the house and the girl then phoned for help and was brought to hospital.

After her scan which revealed that the baby was suffering from anencephaly, a condition where the brain does not fully form. It is expected the baby will die within three days of its birth.

The social worker said that all at HSE “gave every support” to her and he had met with her and her boyfriend and the boyfriend’s mother.

She said she wanted an abortion and her family were collecting money to fund this.

Miss D, he said, asked him what would he do if she went ahead. He said he told her he would have to “take steps” and would have to take legal advice.

The social worker said he believed he was sympathetic to Miss D and the meeting ended amicably.

On April 26, he said, he met Miss D and told her he was still waiting for legal advice. He told her the HSE wished to do a psychiatric assessment. He said he was mindful that Miss D had taken an over dose in January. He said on this occasion she seemed a “lot less distressed” than on the previous occasion. He said that after a psychiatrist had assessed Miss D, the social worker was informed she was not suicidal “but she 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. He said there was no suggestion by anybody that she be committed to a psychiatric hospital.

The judge asked whether it was being contended that the HSE is the sole determining agent as regards the girl’s welfare.

Counsel for Miss D, Mr Eoin Fitzsimons SC, said his side felt that the HSE is making that case and while it has done what it felt was its duty, Miss D’s side says the HSE has misconstrued the law.

Counsel for the HSE, Gerry Durkan SC, said the HSE position is 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.