Concerns that teenager missing from care is involved in manufacture of crack cocaine

Highly troubled and vulnerable children aged 11 to 17 can be detained in a secure care unit, known as special care, on foot of a High Court order sought by Tusla. File picture: iStock

A vulnerable minor who is subject to a court order directing Tusla to place him in secure care was reported missing from his temporary accommodation amid concerns of his involvement in the manufacturing of crack cocaine, the High Court has heard.

Tusla, the child and family agency, has not complied with the order to detain the child in secure care, due to a lack of available beds in the State’s three secure care units.

Highly troubled and vulnerable children aged 11 to 17 can be detained in a secure care unit, known as special care, on foot of a High Court order sought by Tusla.

The minor, who is in his mid-teens, is one of several children currently without a special care bed whose cases were reviewed by Judge John Jordan on Monday.

Tusla is facing multiple lawsuits brought on behalf of children left without a secure care bed, alleging the agency is in contempt of court orders.

The judge described the child’s case as “absurd”, noting Tusla was unaware of his location in circumstances where he is being “groomed and used” by a criminal gang, and is involved in the consumption, manufacture, and sale of drugs.

The child is regularly reported missing from care, the court noted.

Barrister Brendan Hennessy, appearing for the child’s mother, said his client was concerned about her son’s behaviour, and wants him in secure care as soon as possible.

In the case of another minor without a bed, barrister Maeve Cox, appearing for his court-appointed advocate, said the child has been involved in various criminal incidents, including theft of a van.

Michael Lynn, for the boy’s mother, said the minor’s situation was “very, very serious”.

In the case of a child who is currently detained in special care, Tusla was granted an extension to a special care order.

Donal Ó Muircheartaigh, for the child’s advocate, said he has done “amazingly” in special care, has engaged in education and in a barbering course.

Counsel said the advocate was not supporting an extension to order, instead noting the child’s need for a step-down placement. He acknowledged that such a placement was not currently available.

The judge noted that he had met with the child, who expressed to him his desire to leave secure care.

In the absence of an appropriate step-down placement, the judge said he would extend the secure care order for two months. He said the child could not be kept in secure care indefinitely, adding that there was a “level of artificiality” to a situation where an order exists simply because Tusla cannot find an appropriate placement.

Following the court’s approval of the discharge of a child from secure care, Paul Gunning, for Tusla, asked the judge to amend an order relating to another minor who had previously been left without a secure care bed.

Gunning said the child was being prioritised for the vacant bed, and asked that the secure care order in respect of the child reflect her placement at the secure unit. The judge made the order.