Marie Sherlock (Dublin Central, Labour)

I move amendment No. 165:

In page 73, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “(10) Where an application is made to the District Court under subsection (1) for an order authorising the reception, detention, and care and treatment of a child in a registered acute mental health centre, the Executive shall report to the Court—

(a) whether the centre concerned is age-appropriate for a child, and

(b) if not, whether a place is or may become available in a centre that is age-appropriate for a child,

the Court, of its own motion or on the application by any person, shall include such directions in its order as it considers necessary or expedient as to the reception, detention or transfer of the child in order to secure, in so far as is practicable, that the child receives care and treatment in an age-appropriate environment.”.

Amendment No. 165 relates to the age-appropriate environment for the care of the child, specifically when a child is detained. We are conscious that the Ombudsman for Children and Mental Health Reform are calling for an explicit prohibition on children being treated in adult facilities. We are also conscious of the misalignment in the ages that children age out of paediatric mental health services and paediatric physical health services. Children age out at 16 in physical health services and at the age of 18 in mental health services. There is a question about the appropriate physical accommodation, particularly for children aged 16 and 17.

At a committee meeting last week, we listened to the IMO raise issues about the appropriateness of 16- and 17-year-olds being cared for in a paediatric centre when their care may be more consistent with that of an adult rather than that of a child who is much younger. That is also relevant in cases where that 16- or 17-year-old may require a continuum of care right into adulthood. Nonetheless, it is not good enough that we have what one could call a haphazard system at the moment.

The number of children being looked after in adult facilities has gone way down and we welcome that. This amendment is designed to introduce the court as a sort of check and balance when those decisions are being made for children, particularly if they have to be put into adult facilities. In that regard, we believe it is important that the executive shall report to the court whether the centre is age appropriate for the child. If it is not age appropriate for that child, it shall report on whether a place may become available in a centre that is age appropriate. The executive must, in effect, report to the court in that regard and the court would then make a direction. I am conscious the Minister of State is supportive of this. I understand there are issues with our amendment. We are happy to work with the Minister of State on this amendment. I do not know whether it is appropriate now or later to say that we want to move and withdraw this amendment with the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.

See this speech in context