A child in crisis since the day he was born

I WORKED with Christopher O’Driscoll during my employment as a HSE social care worker in Pathways, Cork.

I feel the need to share my views regarding his tragic case. I had a good working relationship with Christopher and he will always have a permanent place in my heart.

Christopher was an articulate, highly emotional, intelligent young person with a great sense of humour. However, he felt unloved and unwanted by most, and had no significant carer in his life from a young age.

For the most part of his short life, he spent his time floating through an inconsistent and dysfunctional child protection service delivered by the health services.

Christopher was in crisis since the day he was born. In an attempt to remove this child from crisis, the HSE took action by employing the Child Care Act 1991 Section 18 — Care Order.

Section (3a) of the act states: “Where a care order is in force, the health board shall — have the like control over the child as if it were his parent…”

A parent or in this case, the HSE, then ensures the welfare and interests of a child, which includes focusing on fundamental functions such as accommodation, education, healthcare. Christopher died with no fixed abode, and a minimal education — he couldn’t read or write, had serious health issues, and there was a lack of integrated services adequate in meeting his needs.

Christopher did not fit the social services system and fell through the cracks. It is clear, and heartbreakingly so — by Christopher’s example — that serious inadequacies exist within Irish social services.

Christopher’s death has fairly evaluated and validated social services as ineffective and failing in its core duty to protect the rights, welfare, and best interests of children. I propose and scream for an overhaul of social services and its ineffectual statutory powers and practices.

To immediately initiate communication between both statutory and non-statutory agencies to work collectively, share information and to implement effective legal decisions.

For example, in Christopher’s case, a function was needed to override Christopher’s objection to treatments. If a person over the age of 16 years lacks capacity to make life decisions, has a disability or mental illness, then a function should exist to authorise coercive powers to override a person’s objection to treatment.

This decision should not be taken lightly, and the fundamental principles in upholding a young person’s best interests and welfare should be maintained.

As Christopher’s key worker, I, along with the Pathways team, endeavoured to execute such a plan.

Christopher was, psychologically and emotionally, gravely unstable, and at that time my fear was his death. Christopher needed vigorous intervention of services to save his life. Regrettably, the plans never developed further, due to our lack of authority and other stakeholders’ unwillingness to come on board.

Furthermore, Christopher was then black-listed from Pathways — the only emergency homeless unit for young male adolescents — and was no longer in our care.

Undoubtedly, it must be acknowledged that Christopher’s behaviour was beyond challenging.

Nonetheless, Christopher is the very reason why social practitioners are employed and the social services exist. We cannot close the doors on frightened, troubled, lonely young people without opening another.

Providing B&B and hotel accommodation is an appalling quick fix (that is going on for a long time) that abuses taxpayers’ money and is wholly inadequate in caring for such young people.

The responsibility is to care for them to the best of our ability and to strive to find innovative solutions in an attempt to support young people like Christopher out of crisis. We have social, moral and statutory responsibility toward such young people.

A statement made at that time by a childcare manager suggested Christopher put himself beyond the care of the service. This is utterly unacceptable. In reality, the service was incapable of meeting Christopher’s needs. Ultimately, our Child Protection Service failed Christopher and this failure resulted in his untimely and inhumane death.

My question is: how did it get to this point?

How did a child under the full care of the HSE die in such horrific circumstances?

Christopher’s intensive case was well known for some time to medical practitioners, community services, statutory services, and the judicial services. But somehow he went unnoticed and without adequate care.

I struggle to understand how Christopher went unnoticed as he had a powerful personality and was more than capable of making his voice heard. We (all stakeholders) simply didn’t listen or work in partnership together in protecting him.

The Irish social services is in actual fact a top-heavy system whereby social workers follow invalid protocol — it is not a service.

Statutory obligation and the duty of care to ALL children in Ireland should involve sharing of information and uniformity of all social services.

There is a critical need to overview the existing systematic structures in place and reshape current practice to meet the needs of young people rather than putting them through a system that fails to care for them time and time again.

Finally, from the viewpoint of a frontline social practitioner, I would like to provide recommendations to the Irish social services:

*To promote professional responsibility and harmonisation of service provision amongst all stakeholders including doctors, the judicial system and the Garda Siochána.

This means that doctors must become more vigilant and aware of clients who misuse drugs; prescriptions for mood stabilisers should not be given so frivolously to young people;

In addition, young people presenting before the court for criminal offences need to be held accountable for their behaviour. However, direction into a diversional court programme is necessary rather than sending them back into the community without consequence or directing them into the penal system.

Community education should be provided to the gardaí concerning the Child Care Act 1991 and the imperative role they play in child protection issues.

*Professional snobbery amongst stakeholders must be eradicated.

Social workers have statutory responsibility towards children in their care. On the other hand, social care workers are with academic qualifications and invaluable field experience, but without influential status or statutory powers. However, they provide primary care and tend to the child’s daily needs.

A social care worker’s intense interaction and understanding of a child ought to bear an influential factor in considering their appropriate and vital needs.

*Mental health services for young people between the ages of 16–18 years must be established and we must stop ignoring a young person’s mental health issues due to illicit drug-taking.

*We must properly utilise pioneering reports such as Geoffrey Shannon’s Third Report of the Special Rapporteur on Child Protection 2009 and Children First — National Guidelines.

*We must implement best practices through legislation to build an effective child protection model incorporating a child centred approach to promote the best interests of the child.

This letter was not meant as a blame game but recognition that a shift in focus must take place at a national level to sincerely protect all children in Irish society.

From my experience in Pathways, the social practitioner team genuinely — and some so desperately — wanted to help Christopher.

Unfortunately we lacked the tools, resources, a shared communication mechanism and influential status to make a difference in his life until it was too late.

The name Christopher O’Driscoll will forever remain with me through my personal and professional lifetime.

Yours sincerely, Mary Rose Waterman