She is identified as “M” in the Supreme Court judgment of February 26th this year. The sketch it paints of her life could hang in a hall of horrors.

In her 17-year existence, she has been physically, emotionally and sexually abused. She has suffered neglect. Her mother is in jail. She has witnessed “horrific” domestic violence committed against her sister by a partner. Some of her siblings have died.

She was living with her father when she was found in the house of a known sex offender and was taken into State care. She has turned to alcohol and drugs, thieving and an attempted arson. One time, she was admitted to intensive care after swallowing heroin cut with fentanyl and benzodiazepines. Another time, an ex-boyfriend posted intimate pictures of her online, taken after she had consumed cocaine. The court was told there was “a significant worry around whether she can actually stay alive in the short to medium term”.

Undoubtedly, “M” meets the criteria for the high-support residential care necessary for young people at severe risk. So why was her case brought before the Supreme Court? Because Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, had refused to apply for a court order to detain her in a special care unit on the grounds that it had no place available. The same rationale applied to “B”, a vulnerable teenage boy diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder, among other conditions. He has been in 15 different placements, including hotels and “social admissions” to hospital, and has often gone missing while in State care. The court heard he was frequently intoxicated, violent and dealing drugs. His........

© The Irish Times