Teenager attacked by teen in custody of HSE

monica22

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I can understand that people maybe scared to speak out but if they don't want to be attacked and abused while working (totally unacceptable BTW) they must speak out.

I no ill be a whistle blower some day sorry if my messages didn't make sense only off night shift

MagicMarker

monica22 wrote: »

No they obviously rang the gardai lik I said they don't have the authority to do it I feel sorry for the young lad all I'm saying is ye dont no the job and what the policies and procedures r so cant give ur opinion on it but not as black and white if the care worker went over and put there hands on him be done for assualt the child care law gone to much do that the child in care can do what they want all I'm saying

You really think a child care worker trying to restrain a 17 year old from almost killing someone else would be done for assault?

I'm sorry but you're talking absolute bollocks.

Cavehill Red

monica22 wrote: »

Yes but the loop hole then been not in a public place! Sorry I'm so tired trying answer everyone and finished 12 hour might shift feel I'm been attacked lol

No one's attacking you, and your perspective is valuable. Though it is frustrating that fatigue is making your posts a little difficult to follow.

monica22

MagicMarker wrote: »

monica22 wrote: »

No they obviously rang the gardai lik I said they don't have the authority to do it I feel sorry for the young lad all I'm saying is ye dont no the job and what the policies and procedures r so cant give ur opinion on it but not as black and white if the care worker went over and put there hands on him be done for assualt the child care law gone to much do that the child in care can do what they want all I'm saying

You really think a child care worker trying to restrain a 17 year old from almost killing someone else would be done for assault?

I'm sorry but you're talking absolute bollocks.

No Im not u don't understand the system neway not here to be attacked giving my opinion I work in the area take it or leave it

Cavehill Red

monica22 wrote: »

I do agree with that they should of escorted him to the shop! Me and you getting somewhere in agreement but I'm saying they shouldn't jumped out the car while he
Beating the guy

I'm thinking they shouldn't have stopped at the shop at all. But yes, if they decided to do so, he should have stayed in the car while one of them ran the errand for him, or else, they all should have accompanied him. I can't imagine there is any protocol which suggests leaving a disturbed young man on his own in a public place in the middle of an escorted transport between two locations.

monica22

Cavehill Red wrote: »

monica22 wrote: »

Yes but the loop hole then been not in a public place! Sorry I'm so tired trying answer everyone and finished 12 hour might shift feel I'm been attacked lol

No one's attacking you, and your perspective is valuable. Though it is frustrating that fatigue is making your posts a little difficult to follow.

Give me three hours I'll be back bright eyed

monica22

Cavehill Red wrote: »

monica22 wrote: »

I do agree with that they should of escorted him to the shop! Me and you getting somewhere in agreement but I'm saying they shouldn't jumped out the car while he
Beating the guy

I'm thinking they shouldn't have stopped at the shop at all. But yes, if they decided to do so, he should have stayed in the car while one of them ran the errand for him, or else, they all should have accompanied him. I can't imagine there is any protocol which suggests leaving a disturbed young man on his own in a public place in the middle of an escorted transport between two locations.

He had no previous convictions kids are in care aren't all disturbed! It was his first night care they didn't no what he lik so probably trusted him to go to the shop

MrThrifty

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Their job was to escort the aggressor from one location to another. They failed to do so. As a result, he sought to kill another boy and left him with brain damage. They failed in their duty of care and failed to carry out a perfectly simple task of driving a car directly from A to B. The consequences of their negligence have been devastating, and it doesn't matter whether those consequences could have been foreseen or not. They did not fulfil their task, which was entirely in their capabilities to do so, and therefore they should not be in the job.

Listen, we don't know the full facts here. From what I heard, the attack was unexpected - the guy literally suddenly jumped out of the car and legged it back to the victim in question that they'd driven past (possibly out of sight of his carers).

Anyway, it annoys me when people start complaining about the HSE and so on in these cases. For one thing, the social workers are generally understaffed. But more importantly, the whole reason these 'delinquents' are in care in the first place is because their parents have quite simply make a mess of bringing them up and abandoned what they've produced. If the attacker in question had not been in the care of the HSE but simply a normal kid living at home with his parents, I wonder would people be attacking the parents like they do the HSE.

In terms of bystanders not trying to break up the attack, the reality these days is that the attacker could well pull out a knife and kill them should they get involved. That is the state of this country at the moment. A lot of low-medium level crimes are not followed up on and justice served - instead the fire-fighting is all focussed on the higher level crimes (murder, serious assault) etc.).

Edit: Before I'm attacked, I do acknowledge that there are generalisations in what I say above (e.g. why kids end up in care etc.)...

MagicMarker

monica22 wrote: »

No Im not u don't understand the system neway not here to be attacked giving my opinion I work in the area take it or leave it

Sorry, no, you're simply wrong.

Leftist

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Their job was to escort the aggressor from one location to another. They failed to do so. As a result, he sought to kill another boy and left him with brain damage. They failed in their duty of care and failed to carry out a perfectly simple task of driving a car directly from A to B. The consequences of their negligence have been devastating, and it doesn't matter whether those consequences could have been foreseen or not. They did not fulfil their task, which was entirely in their capabilities to do so, and therefore they should not be in the job.

How do you know he was an aggressor prior to the incident?

Was he tried and/or convicted of GBH previously?

Were two social cares assigned a task to transport a prisoner from A to B without stopping?

Unless there was reason to believe this incident would happen, the care workers are completely absolved of any responsibility for allowing the man exist the vehicle.

They are not even trained psychiatric nurses.

Typical paddy blame game.

monica22

monica22 wrote: »

Cavehill Red wrote: »

monica22 wrote: »

I do agree with that they should of escorted him to the shop! Me and you getting somewhere in agreement but I'm saying they shouldn't jumped out the car while he
Beating the guy

I'm thinking they shouldn't have stopped at the shop at all. But yes, if they decided to do so, he should have stayed in the car while one of them ran the errand for him, or else, they all should have accompanied him. I can't imagine there is any protocol which suggests leaving a disturbed young man on his own in a public place in the middle of an escorted transport between two locations.

He had no previous convictions kids are in care aren't all disturbed! It was his first night care they didn't no what he lik so probably trusted him to go to the shop

I'm really tired I'll get back to u when I wake up

monica22

MrThrifty wrote: »

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Their job was to escort the aggressor from one location to another. They failed to do so. As a result, he sought to kill another boy and left him with brain damage. They failed in their duty of care and failed to carry out a perfectly simple task of driving a car directly from A to B. The consequences of their negligence have been devastating, and it doesn't matter whether those consequences could have been foreseen or not. They did not fulfil their task, which was entirely in their capabilities to do so, and therefore they should not be in the job.

Listen, we don't know the full facts here. From what I heard, the attack was unexpected - the guy literally suddenly jumped out of the car and legged it back to the victim in question that they'd driven past (possibly out of sight of his carers).

Anyway, it annoys me when people start complaining about the HSE and so on in these cases. For one thing, the social workers are generally understaffed. But more importantly, the whole reason these 'delinquents' are in care in the first place is because their parents have quite simply make a mess of bringing them up and abandoned what they've produced. If the attacker in question had not been in the care of the HSE but simply a normal kid living at home with his parents, I wonder would people be attacking the parents like they do the HSE.

In terms of bystanders not trying to break up the attack, the reality these days is that the attacker could well pull out a knife and kill them should they get involved. That is the state of this country at the moment. A lot of low-medium level crimes are not followed up on and justice served - instead the fire-fighting is all focussed on the higher level crimes (murder, serious assault) etc.).

Thanks what I wanted to say really but not functioning due to lack of sleep

monica22

Leftist wrote: »

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Their job was to escort the aggressor from one location to another. They failed to do so. As a result, he sought to kill another boy and left him with brain damage. They failed in their duty of care and failed to carry out a perfectly simple task of driving a car directly from A to B. The consequences of their negligence have been devastating, and it doesn't matter whether those consequences could have been foreseen or not. They did not fulfil their task, which was entirely in their capabilities to do so, and therefore they should not be in the job.

How do you know he was an aggressor prior to the incident?

Was he tried and/or convicted of GBH previously?

Were two social cares assigned a task to transport a prisoner from A to B without stopping?

Unless there was reason to believe this incident would happen, the care workers are completely absolved of any responsibility for allowing the man exist the vehicle.

They are not even trained psychiatric nurses.

Typical paddy blame game.

well said

Cavehill Red

Leftist wrote: »

How do you know he was an aggressor prior to the incident?

Was he tried and/or convicted of GBH previously?

Not relevant at all. As I already said, whether the consequences were foreseeable or not, their job was to transport him to a designated location, not to leave him unattended at a shop.

Leftist wrote: »

Were two social cares assigned a task to transport a prisoner from A to B without stopping?

They weren't assigned to leave him unattended at a shop. They were assigned to get him to his destination without incident, which they failed to do, with appalling consequences.

Unless there was reason to believe this incident would happen, the care workers are completely absolved of any responsibility for allowing the man exist the vehicle.

Leftist wrote: »

They are not even trained psychiatric nurses.

Typical paddy blame game.

Well, if they didn't wish to be blamed for negligence, they shouldn't have been negligent in their duties.

ROCKMAN

monica22 wrote: »

No they obviously rang the gardai lik I said they don't have the authority to do it I feel sorry for the young lad all I'm saying is ye dont no the job and what the policies and procedures r so cant give ur opinion on it but not as black and white if the care worker went over and put there hands on him be done for assualt the child care law gone to much do that the child in care can do what they want all I'm saying

PROCEDURES AND POLICIES would in this situtation state that he should have been accompanied to the shop by the HSE staff ,He should never have been left un-supervised at any stage of the trip .
The presents of a member of staff doing their job correctly would have /could have stopped the situtation developing ...

Sofiztikated

Monika, seriously quit with the text speak.

And the "you don't know" spiel is tiresome, 12 hour shift or not.

A person in their care was brutally attacking someone. Stop assuming they were "in the car calling the Gardi" All we have evidence for is that they were not present. Hence they were not doing their job right.

If I don't do my job right, there is repercussions. So why not the same for them?

monica22

ROCKMAN wrote: »

monica22 wrote: »

No they obviously rang the gardai lik I said they don't have the authority to do it I feel sorry for the young lad all I'm saying is ye dont no the job and what the policies and procedures r so cant give ur opinion on it but not as black and white if the care worker went over and put there hands on him be done for assualt the child care law gone to much do that the child in care can do what they want all I'm saying

PROCEDURES AND POLICIES would in this situtation state that he should have been accompanied to the shop by the HSE staff ,He should never have been left un-supervised at any stage of the trip .
The presents of a member of staff doing their job correctly would have /could have stopped the situtation developing ...

It's policies and procedures and sorry to burst ur bubble but your wrong there ha

Seachmall

monica22 wrote: »

sorry to burst ur bubble but your wrong there ha

Another compelling argument.

He was a minor in their care. They're responsible for him. End of.

It's really not that complicated.

Leftist

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not relevant at all. As I already said, whether the consequences were foreseeable or not, their job was to transport him to a designated location, not to leave him unattended at a shop.

Unless he was under custody or deemed a threat the care workers had no reason or legal right to prevent him from exiting the vehicle.

So in terms of demanding punishment for negligence, when the staff were not infact negligent, then it is entirely relevant.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

They weren't assigned to leave him unattended at a shop. They were assigned to get him to his destination without incident, which they failed to do, with appalling consequences.

See above. If there was no percieved threat, no orders to keep the patient under strict observation and arrest then it is not their assignment.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Well, if they didn't wish to be blamed for negligence, they shouldn't have been negligent in their duties.

They weren't. As far as we both know. You have failed repeatedly to provide any evidence this man was considered a threat prior to the incident.

You're assuming a juvenile under social care should be assumed a violent threat. That is ridiculous.

monica22

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Monika, seriously quit with the text speak.

And the "you don't know" spiel is tiresome, 12 hour shift or not.

A person in their care was brutally attacking someone. Stop assuming they were "in the car calling the Gardi" All we have evidence for is that they were not present. Hence they were not doing their job right.

If I don't do my job right, there is repercussions. So why not the same for them?

You ve obviously never done a 12 hour night shift with 5 teenagers so give me a break!

MagicMarker

Monica, if there was a 5 year old in your care and he started hitting another child would you stop him or would you call the gardai and allow the beating to continue until they showed up?

Seachmall

monica22 wrote: »

You ve obviously never done a 12 hour night shift with 5 teenagers so give me a break!

Oh, they were incapable of doing their job correctly, is that what you're saying?

monica22

Seachmall wrote: »

monica22 wrote: »

sorry to burst ur bubble but your wrong there ha

Another compelling argument.

He was a minor in their care. They're responsible for him. End of.

It's really not that complicated.

So when we drop a kid on time out and if they go off and kill someone wer the ones who are responsible???????? That's more or less what your saying

monica22

MagicMarker wrote: »

Monica, if there was a 5 year old in your care and he started hitting another child would you stop him or would you call the gardai and allow the beating to continue until they showed up?

Don't look after 5 year olds I know what your saying really do I'm just explaining it from the other side

MagicMarker

monica22 wrote: »

Don't look after 5 year olds I know what your saying really do I'm just explaining it from the other side

What's the answer to the question?

Seachmall

monica22 wrote: »

So when we drop a kid on time out and if they go off and kill someone wer the ones who are responsible???????? That's more or less what your saying

Who are "we" and what does "on time out" mean in this instance?

I'll answer your question when you expand on that, until then assume the answer is "No, that's not what I'm saying".

Don't look after 5 year olds I know what your saying really do I'm just explaining it from the other side

But your explanations for the other side are excuses as to why they couldn't do their job correctly.

monica22

Seachmall wrote: »

monica22 wrote: »

So when we drop a kid on time out and if they go off and kill someone wer the ones who are responsible???????? That's more or less what your saying

Who are "we" and what does "on time out" mean in this instance?

I'll answer your question when you expand on that, until then assume the answer is "No, that's not what I'm saying".

Don't look after 5 year olds I know what your saying really do I'm just explaining it from the other side

But your explanations for the other side are excuses, not justifications for what occurred when a minor was in their care.

we as in the social care workers drop them on time out! Time out refer to the child getting free time their own

Seachmall

monica22 wrote: »

we as in the social care workers drop them on time out! Time out refer to the child getting free time their own

Presumably the social workers' responsibility for the child ends only when they complete their assigned task.

I don't think they can suddenly relieve themselves of responsibility whenever suits.

Leftist

Seachmall wrote: »

Another compelling argument.

He was a minor in their care. They're responsible for him. End of.

It's really not that complicated.

Hi,

Was wondering please if you could provide some relevant HSE procedural information to back this up.

1. Juveniles under HSE care are to be kept under strict observation at all times
2. Juveniles under HSE care are assumed to be a threat to public

Have you ever been to a mental health facility?

Cavehill Red

Leftist wrote: »

Unless he was under custody or deemed a threat the care workers had no reason or legal right to prevent him from exiting the vehicle.

So in terms of demanding punishment for negligence, when the staff were not infact negligent, then it is entirely relevant.

Nonsense. They were required to escort him to a designated location under supervision. Instead, they took him to a different location and left him unattended where he beat a lad near to death. That's patent negligence.

Leftist wrote: »

See above. If there was no percieved threat, no orders to keep the patient under strict observation and arrest then it is not their assignment.
They weren't. As far as we both know. You have failed repeatedly to provide any evidence this man was considered a threat prior to the incident.

I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you. It doesn't matter whether his actions could have been foreseen or not. All that matters is that they failed to do their job properly by escorting him from A to B.

Leftist wrote: »

You're assuming a juvenile under social care should be assumed a violent threat. That is ridiculous.

No, I'm assuming that people assigned to escort someone from one location to another under supervision ought to supervise that person and take them directly to their destination.

Duggy747

RTE News wrote:

He was in the care of the HSE and was being transferred back to his accommodation by two female social care workers when he demanded the driver of the car stop at the service station.

Now, something is seriously wrong here that he was left alone for such an ample amount of time to do what he did. Were they parked around the corner and out of sight?

Questions need to be asked about why he was under their custody and had he a history of violence that warranted the fact that he could be left alone.

Seachmall

Leftist wrote: »

Hi,

Was wondering please if you could provide some relevant HSE procedural information to back this up.

1. Juveniles under HSE care are to be kept under strict observation at all times
2. Juveniles under HSE care are assumed to be a threat to public

Have you ever been to a mental health facility?

Why would I do that? I never stated or implied either.

The post you quoted is very straight-forward and self-explanatory, don't read things that aren't there.

monica22

Duggy747 wrote: »

RTE News wrote:

He was in the care of the HSE and was being transferred back to his accommodation by two female social care workers when he demanded the driver of the car stop at the service station.

Now, something is seriously wrong here that he was left alone for such an ample amount of time to do what he did. Were they parked around the corner and out of sight?

Questions need to be asked about why he was under their custody and had he a history of violence that warranted the fact that he could be left alone.

Ok everybody hold on

Leftist

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No, I'm assuming that people assigned to escort someone from one location to another under supervision ought to supervise that person and take them directly to their destination.

Without evidence that this patient was not to be allowed out of the sight of the carers, then you are absolutely wrong.

You're calling for these two professionals to lose their jobs and assume responsibility for this incident.

Retropectively rearranging the description of their task without any knowledge of the incident beyond an rte report is not good enough. It's actually stupid.

Leftist

Seachmall wrote: »

Why would I do that? I never stated or implied either.

The post you quoted is very straight-forward and self-explanatory, don't read things that aren't there.

ROCKMAN wrote: »

PROCEDURES AND POLICIES would in this situtation state that he should have been accompanied to the shop by the HSE staff ,He should never have been left un-supervised at any stage of the trip .
...

monica22 wrote: »

It's policies and procedures and sorry to burst ur bubble but your wrong there ha

Seachmall wrote: »

Another compelling argument.

He was a minor in their care. They're responsible for him. End of.

It's really not that complicated.

.

Seachmall

Leftist wrote: »

You're calling for these two professionals to lose their jobs and assume responsibility for this incident.

Are you suggesting that social workers with a minor in their care are not responsible for that minor?




Regarding the above post,

What's your point?

monica22

I'm finally on a laptop now so can give a better understanding of social care .

For a variety of reasons, some children
and young people can’t live with their
parents. When parents aren’t able to look
after a child, the local authority has a
legal responsibility to do so. It will find
somewhere for the young person to live
and someone to look after them. When
this happens, the child is said to be “in
care” or being “looked after”.
There are two main types of being in care.
A child or young person may:
be voluntarily living in a home run by
a local authority or charity or a foster
home, where the child’s parents agree
to the child being looked after
have been legally removed from
the child’s family without the parents’
consent. This happens when a court
feels that a child could be damaged
by living at home and issues a Care
Order. Approximately three out of
every five children in care are under
a Care Order

The purpose of residential care is to provide a safe, nurturing environment for individual children and young people who cannot live at home or in an alternative family environment. It aims to meet in a planned way the physical, educational, emotional, spiritual, health and social needs of each child. This may include

working with a young person’s Social Worker and other professionals to prepare a young person for a successful return home,

working with a young person’s Social Worker and other professionals to prepare a young person for a successful transition to an agreed placement of choice,

working with a young person’s Social Worker and other professionals to prepare a young person for a successful transition to independent / supported living.

All professionals who work with children in residential centres strive to ensure:

that the welfare and best interests of resident young people are of paramount consideration in all aspects of the care provided
that the young people in care are provided with an opportunity to feel safe, secure and protected from harm in an environment where they can be sure their primary needs will be met.
that the young people in care feel encouraged and supported when partaking in new and positive experiences.
That the young people in care are provided opportunities to develop new competencies and to enjoy their achievements while also experiencing approval, recognition and praise for the efforts they have made.
that the practice reflects the importance of understanding both the past and present life experience of the young people in our care and takes due consideration of their age and corresponding stage of development.
that the young people in care feel valued even when their thoughts, feelings and behaviour are difficult for them to manage or for us to accept.
that the relationships developed convey attentiveness, compassion and respect for the young people in our care, their families, communities and cultures
that the programmes developed for the young people in care are always delivered with the same attentiveness, compassion and respect that embodies the relationships formed with them.

The residential is a "home" to the child while they remain in that setting. meaning the child can go on free time, unsupervised access, activities dropped and collected from school. the staff are not with the child 24/7 unless the child in high support, special care or a secure unit

Seachmall

Faith in families =/= HSE

Cavehill Red

Leftist wrote: »

Without evidence that this patient was not to be allowed out of the sight of the carers, then you are absolutely wrong.

You're calling for these two professionals to lose their jobs and assume responsibility for this incident.

Retropectively rearranging the description of their task without any knowledge of the incident beyond an rte report is not good enough. It's actually stupid.

Well, I'm keen to see your evidence that they were assigned to leave him unattended at a shop...

Leftist

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Well, I'm keen to see your evidence that they were assigned to leave him unattended at a shop...

Are you assigned to use the canteen facilities in your workplace?

Are you assigned to visit a retail outlet or a grocery shop when on business time?

before you answer that nobody is beaten beacuse of these events, please provide evidence that his juvenile was considered a threat.

Leftist

Seachmall wrote: »

Faith in families =/= HSE

What's that? what do you mean by that?

Cavehill Red

Leftist wrote: »

Are you assigned to use the canteen facilities in your workplace?

Are you assigned to visit a retail outlet or a grocery shop when on business time?

before you answer that nobody is beaten beacuse of these events, please provide evidence that his juvenile was considered a threat.

Am I in the care of social care workers assigned to escort me to a designated location?

monica22

The purpose of residential care is to provide a safe, nurturing environment for individual children and young people who cannot live at home or in an alternative family environment. It aims to meet in a planned way the physical, educational, emotional, spiritual, health and social needs of each child. This may include

working with a young person’s Social Worker and other professionals to prepare a young person for a successful return home,

working with a young person’s Social Worker and other professionals to prepare a young person for a successful transition to an agreed placement of choice,

working with a young person’s Social Worker and other professionals to prepare a young person for a successful transition to independent / supported living.



A residential is a "home" to the child meaning that they can go places unsupervised dont have to be escorted everywhere once their not in a high support, special care, or secure unit.
All professionals who work with children in residential centres strive to ensure:

that the welfare and best interests of resident young people are of paramount consideration in all aspects of the care provided
that the young people in care are provided with an opportunity to feel safe, secure and protected from harm in an environment where they can be sure their primary needs will be met.
that the young people in care feel encouraged and supported when partaking in new and positive experiences.
That the young people in care are provided opportunities to develop new competencies and to enjoy their achievements while also experiencing approval, recognition and praise for the efforts they have made.
that the practice reflects the importance of understanding both the past and present life experience of the young people in our care and takes due consideration of their age and corresponding stage of development.
that the young people in care feel valued even when their thoughts, feelings and behaviour are difficult for them to manage or for us to accept.
that the relationships developed convey attentiveness, compassion and respect for the young people in our care, their families, communities and cultures
that the programmes developed for the young people in care are always delivered with the same attentiveness, compassion and respect that embodies the relationships formed with them.

Cavehill Red

Monica, your CTRL+C skills are epic, but the circumstances are that this lad was not in a residential but being escorted under supervision to a location by two social care workers.

MagicMarker

Monica can you please answer my question?

Duggy747

Irish Independant wrote:

A TEENAGER who left a youth with permanent brain damage after repeatedly "dancing" on his head had been placed under the care of the Health Service Executive (HSE) just hours before the attack.

The Irish Independent has learned that Adam Fitzgibbon (18) had been handed over to the HSE's care by his parents on the same day he left another teenager fighting for his life following a sustained and brutal assault.

Yesterday, Fitzgibbon of Lisanalta, Dooradoyle, Limerick, was jailed for 12 years for the attack, which happened on July 23 last year.

At the time of the attack at a service station in Corbally, Co Clare, Fitzgibbon was being escorted by two young female care workers taking him to a HSE residential unit.

The Irish Independent has also learned that Fitzgibbon mistakenly identified the victim as a witness who had given evidence against his friend and convicted murderer, John O'Loughlin, weeks earlier.

Moments before he launched into the assault, Fitzgibbon hissed: "You got my friend locked up for life". The 16-year-old victim of Fitzgibbon was a friend of the murder victim and had attended O'Loughlin's trial as had Fitzgibbon -- but did not have any role in the legal proceedings.

It is understood that both of the care workers who were transporting Fitzgibbon on the day of the incident were aged in their early 20s.

A TEENAGER who left a youth with permanent brain damage after repeatedly "dancing" on his head had been placed under the care of the Health Service Executive (HSE) just hours before the attack.

The Irish Independent has learned that Adam Fitzgibbon (18) had been handed over to the HSE's care by his parents on the same day he left another teenager fighting for his life following a sustained and brutal assault.

Yesterday, Fitzgibbon of Lisanalta, Dooradoyle, Limerick, was jailed for 12 years for the attack, which happened on July 23 last year.

At the time of the attack at a service station in Corbally, Co Clare, Fitzgibbon was being escorted by two young female care workers taking him to a HSE residential unit.

The Irish Independent has also learned that Fitzgibbon mistakenly identified the victim as a witness who had given evidence against his friend and convicted murderer, John O'Loughlin, weeks earlier.

Moments before he launched into the assault, Fitzgibbon hissed: "You got my friend locked up for life". The 16-year-old victim of Fitzgibbon was a friend of the murder victim and had attended O'Loughlin's trial as had Fitzgibbon -- but did not have any role in the legal proceedings.

It is understood that both of the care workers who were transporting Fitzgibbon on the day of the incident were aged in their early 20s.

They had arranged to meet him in Limerick city prior to the incident. Fitzgibbon was being transferred to his accommodation at Edenvilla, O'Brien's Bridge, Co Clare, when he demanded the driver stop the car at the service station.

Gruesome CCTV footage played in court yesterday showed how the accused inflicted 65 kicks and stamps to the head of his 16-year-old victim along with two stamps to his chest and 26 punches.

It showed the young victim sitting on a windowsill when he was attacked by the accused who repeatedly punched, kicked and stamped on the boy's head.

Meanwhile, the victim lay motionless on the ground in a pool of blood.

The recording lasted almost five minutes and came with a forewarning from Mr Justice Paul Carney that anyone squeamish should leave the room. Mr Justice Carney said the viewing of the footage was essential to appreciate "the ferocity of the gratuitous kicking of the head" of the victim.

Some 11 eyewitnesses observed the assault, which only ended after a bystander intervened.

After his arrest, Fitzgibbon claimed to gardai that he had taken drugs before the attack.

The HSE has refused to respond to questions from the Irish Independent as to why Fitzgibbon was left in the care of two young female HSE workers. In a response the HSE said it did not comment on individual cases.

HSE Mid West Area Manager Bernard Gloster said: "Information generated in the course of a relationship with the health services must be protected, especially in the case of young persons. Even if we are subject to criticism, we are not at liberty to enter into public debate."

The accused had originally been charged with attempted murder of his victim on July 23, 2010. However, a plea to intentionally causing his victim serious harm was accepted in the Central Criminal Court.

The victim's parents declined to comment yesterday.

Gruesome CCTV footage played in court yesterday showed how the accused inflicted 65 kicks and stamps to the head of his 16-year-old victim along with two stamps to his chest and 26 punches.

It showed the young victim sitting on a windowsill when he was attacked by the accused who repeatedly punched, kicked and stamped on the boy's head.

Meanwhile, the victim lay motionless on the ground in a pool of blood.

The recording lasted almost five minutes and came with a forewarning from Mr Justice Paul Carney that anyone squeamish should leave the room. Mr Justice Carney said the viewing of the footage was essential to appreciate "the ferocity of the gratuitous kicking of the head" of the victim.

Some 11 eyewitnesses observed the assault, which only ended after a bystander intervened.

After his arrest, Fitzgibbon claimed to gardai that he had taken drugs before the attack.

The HSE has refused to respond to questions from the Irish Independent as to why Fitzgibbon was left in the care of two young female HSE workers. In a response the HSE said it did not comment on individual cases.

HSE Mid West Area Manager Bernard Gloster said: "Information generated in the course of a relationship with the health services must be protected, especially in the case of young persons. Even if we are subject to criticism, we are not at liberty to enter into public debate."

The accused had originally been charged with attempted murder of his victim on July 23, 2010. However, a plea to intentionally causing his victim serious harm was accepted in the Central Criminal Court.

The victim's parents declined to comment yesterday.

I think there's the sufficent evidence that this fella had a violent background.

Monica, should've saved youself time of copying and pasting and just linked the HSE site instead.

Seachmall

Leftist wrote: »

What's that? what do you mean by that?

Monica is quoting from a private charity's documents called "Faith in Families", which is not relevant to this case nor does it deal with the HSE's responsibilities.

Welruc

MrThrifty wrote: »

Listen, we don't know the full facts here. From what I heard, the attack was unexpected - the guy literally suddenly jumped out of the car and legged it back to the victim in question that they'd driven past (possibly out of sight of his carers).

Anyway, it annoys me when people start complaining about the HSE and so on in these cases. For one thing, the social workers are generally understaffed. But more importantly, the whole reason these 'delinquents' are in care in the first place is because their parents have quite simply make a mess of bringing them up and abandoned what they've produced. If the attacker in question had not been in the care of the HSE but simply a normal kid living at home with his parents, I wonder would people be attacking the parents like they do the HSE.

In terms of bystanders not trying to break up the attack, the reality these days is that the attacker could well pull out a knife and kill them should they get involved. That is the state of this country at the moment. A lot of low-medium level crimes are not followed up on and justice served - instead the fire-fighting is all focussed on the higher level crimes (murder, serious assault) etc.).

Edit: Before I'm attacked, I do acknowledge that there are generalisations in what I say above (e.g. why kids end up in care etc.)...

Well im pretty certain that if the kid was with his parents at the time he carried out this attack for 5 minutes without them stepping in then you would have a different story!

I know when i was in school and a fight broke out the teachers intervined and broke it up, i wonder if teachers stepped aside and called the guards instead what would happen?

Rules and regulations aside, if you have a child in your care and something like this happens then you have failed in your care.

MrThrifty

Monica, good on you for spelling that out. Can I ask a hard question, and while I'm hoping the answer will support both of our sides, it may well not do so:

As someone involved in the social services sector, is it your experience that a child in the care of the HSE, however inadequate that is due to the system in place here, will generally be SAFER and LESS OF A THREAT to themselves and others than if that child were left with their original parents/guardians?

Obviously if a child is already off the rails, then it's likely that things will escalate from there no matter who's care they're in. But the question then is about whether things will escalate faster or slower when they're moved to the care of the HSE. I know it's a complicated situation since the child could develop further issues simply through the trauma of being moved to care by an organisation rather than one or two parents, but base your answer on the alternative of the child just being left as is with the parent/s and NO intervention at all by the HSE etc.

Leftist

Duggy747 wrote: »

I think there's the sufficent evidence that this fella had a violent background.

.

I'm missing the information from that article that proves this.

Where is it?

Furthermore where is the rules that indicate social carers must have patients under strict observation at all times?

We see from this article that this attack was not random, therefore there is less reason to assume the patient could attack someone at the location.

Infact it is a situation directly linked to a previous occurance. So were the care workers advised of gang membership or a threat to a witnesses life?

If not they have no reason for negligence.