Attn:Hse intimidates family who sought better services in Meath.

ishmael whale

Ajnag wrote:

Is it outside the bounds of confidentiality and anonymity(irrelevant due to media coverage anyway) to state their was a fear for the welfare of the children. Cant say for sure but havent such statements been made in past?

I’m not claiming any expertise on the law, but I noticed this article in the Examiner. I know we’ve seen names in print all over the place, but it looks like the actual legal process has some confidentiality clause.

http://www.examiner.ie/pport/web/ireland/Full_Story/did-sg3Yd4fmt7zEosg7IQHSmeYhNE.asp
“…The family are from Co Meath but the legislation under which the health authorities acted prohibits publication of their identity despite their willingness to go public with their plight….”

Ajnag wrote:

Ill admit that I cant make definate statements, but my demand for support comes from a vested intrest I stated clearly at the start. The conduct of sucessive goverments and the hse have affected me and my family and it is clear to see even to those unaffected that this country has a shamefull track record on the matter.

Fine, and in fairness if it subsequently transpires that the HSE have abused their power it is frightening. Clearly HSE need to be able to take children into care at short notice, but we depend on them to use that power ethically.

Mycroft wrote:

The parents where featured as a part of an award winning prime time special from last year. Two of their children are twins ....

Just to illustrate that we can’t rely on the media for the details of the case, look at the ages below. Which two are the twins?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/...dL11Zs5FWAE.asp
The O'Hara's oldest son, Fionn, 16, suffers from dyslexia. The other four children Oisin, 13; Blaine, nine; Seadna, five and four-year-old Cionnaola have autism.

mycroft

ishmael whale wrote:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/...dL11Zs5FWAE.asp
The O'Hara's oldest son, Fionn, 16, suffers from dyslexia. The other four children Oisin, 13; Blaine, nine; Seadna, five and four-year-old Cionnaola have autism.

Ishmael my mistake.

I worked on the documentary I mentioned. I've watched literally 30 or 40 hours of footage of the family. A nights sleep is harrowing for the parents; They're good honest people.

If you doubt my claim i'll pm supporting evidence to a politics mod of your choice.

ishmael whale

I’ve no problem accepting that having four children with autism is a draining experience, and I’ve no problem believing the people concerned are essentially decent folk. I don’t doubt seeing their daily lives would create empathy, and a desire to see them right.

But to evaluate the actions of the HSE requires more information than we have, and more information than we can reasonably be expected to obtain. The HSE do seem to have restrictions on what they can publically state, and that seems reasonable. Maybe they have abused that power, but I don’t see that reliance on media coverage is a more reliable process than requiring the HSE to obtain a court order, and to subsequently defend their actions in court.

mycroft

ishmael whale wrote:

But to evaluate the actions of the HSE requires more information than we have, and more information than we can reasonably be expected to obtain. The HSE do seem to have restrictions on what they can publically state, and that seems reasonable. Maybe they have abused that power, but I don’t see that reliance on media coverage is a more reliable process than requiring the HSE to obtain a court order, and to subsequently defend their actions in court.

No but this is a family thats been begging for HSE support for years. A report has stated that they're a good family who love care and support for their children.

But the support they've recieved from the south eastern health board has been pathetic.

And after years of negigble support from the HSE afte their eldest child runs away, because he can't take the strain any more, the family are taken into care, it's a horrific. After years of asking for some residential respite care (just a night or two a week and help with day care) the children are taken from them.

You need to see these kids, their autism is so advance some of them lack basic communication skills, language skills, toilet training. They need help. They love their family, they asked for help for years, and when none was forthcoming, the state snapped and took the children away. What would you do. They've suffered in silence for years, and the movement to the press was one of desperate. It's worth noting that after yesterdays meeting, the family refused comment. They're not interested in point scoring. They're interested about keeping their family together, and can't do that without some degree of state support. Which they barely recieve at this moment

Ajnag

Unfortunatly the primetime archives only go back, as far as last october, so its not on the net any more. I was going to link otherwise.

The parents afaik only get 2 hours sleep a night, Drive over 60 miles to get the kid's to special needs schools and whats also worth noting is that when they went to england for consultation, they were given a psychological review that came out quite favourable, so for the hse to suddenly obtain an order seems somewhat unreasonable.

Also worth noting is why the court order, when the hse could have offered a period of respite instead?

Maybe there is no malice in the hse's actions, but I find this hard to belive. The lack of an offer of respite being the first suspicion, second the hse's familiarity with the family history such that someone in a managerial postion probably had to approve the proceedings against the family(Well I hope so anyway, scary to think low level civil servants could make such powerfull decisions).

If not malice then possibly a serious break in hse procedure, but even then the implications of that are serious. In any case, the implications of this action on the children are serious, authistic kid's need repeditive patterns in their daily lives, this will cause harm.

ishmael whale

I’m not suggesting the parents are not decent people who want the best for their children and clearly no-one would actively seek to get into this situation. But you have to accept that having four children with autism in one family, and a fifth who requires extra help, is a highly unusual situation. I would find it surprising if a typical experience was that a couple could have five children over sixteen years, and only discover after twelve years that all of those children have special needs of some kind.

Its hard to see any real solution for this situation, only some level of mitigation. I don’t doubt if there are general problems in the delivery of services for people with disabilities then this family’s problems must be magnified. However, even in countries with reasonable levels of service provision I don’t doubt coping with so many children with extra needs within the one household would be difficult.

So, all in all, if someone presented a case of a couple with a child needing some particular support and not getting it, I would feel this illustrates that such services are inadequate. If someone presents a case of someone with five children needing various supports and not getting them I can appreciate that they are carrying an enormous burden. But I can equally appreciate that the HSE would have problems in working out a way forward.

Its not as if this is the only demand being made on the health services, which you’ll recall in the past was reduced to rifling pensions to pay for its costs. (In fact refunding that money now means there is even less available to meet demands on the health service.)

mycroft wrote:

.... the support they've recieved from the south eastern health board has been pathetic.

We don’t know enough about the case to make any sensible comment. You may feel that you have a familiarity with the case because you participated in making a documentary, but I’m not sure you know as much as you think. I’m not trying to play silly buggers, but you seem to have made a second error of fact. I take in that, unless this family only recently moved to Kells, that before the HSE came into existence their case was dealt with by the North Eastern Health Board.

I’m not saying this is material, any more than the fact of whether the family included twins is essentially material. I’m just pointing out that I can contradict the information you provide in some respects simply on the basis of what is already in the public domain.

mycroft

ishmael whale wrote:

I’m not saying this is material, any more than the fact of whether the family included twins is essentially material. I’m just pointing out that I can contradict the information you provide in some respects simply on the basis of what is already in the public domain.

two errors of fact, the children were born close to each other and before the elder child was diagnosised.

You stood judgement over the family because of the size and number of autistic children they have, as if they had brought their woes onto themselves.

South Eastern/North Eastern, I'll chalk that one up to an honest mistake, I did post at past 11 at night and it'd been a long day. It's a superficial factual error and you're making more out of it then it deserves...

ishmael whale

mycroft wrote:

You stood judgement over the family because of the size and number of autistic children they have, as if they had brought their woes onto themselves.

I have no influence in the situation one way or the other, so I’m standing in judgment on nobody. Yes, in my own mind I still wonder how anyone could get themselves into this situation and, yes, in my own mind I’m conscious that there’s a difference between saying the diagnosis of autism came in 2002 and saying it was only in 2002 that any problem was noticeable. But that just my own perception. I accept we don’t have enough details on the case to prognosticate. But that cuts both ways.
If we take the freeze-frame of the moment, we can say this family must be operating under tremendous pressure. We can watch film footage of their daily lives, and hear their own account of how they feel about their situation and about the HSE. But that doesn’t tell us how this situation occurred or what the HSE are doing about it.
For what its worth the HSE did make a general statement of its obligation to protect children. That’s not to say they have behaved correctly – but the minimal acknowledgement that some contributors wanted to see seems to have been given.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2005/0308/212759523HM1OHARA.html
“…. The Health Service Executive (North Eastern Area) was last night unavailable for comment. It stated last weekend that it could not comment on the case except to say that under the Childcare Act it had an obligation to ensure the safety and welfare of children..”

mycroft wrote:

South Eastern/North Eastern, I'll chalk that one up to an honest mistake, I did post at past 11 at night and it'd been a long day. It's a superficial factual error and you're making more out of it then it deserves...

I’m not suggesting that either this or your statement about the family including twins has any material impact on the discussion. I’m just posing the very obvious question that if a gob****e like me can pick you up on two points simply from superficial information gathered from whatever news reports I’ve come across, what might I be able to pick you up on if I had some substantive knowledge. You might have seen a lot of disturbing footage, but I’m not sure you have a real grip on the facts of the case. If it’s a programme you did that won an award I’d sort have expect the knowledge you gained would have stuck.

mycroft

ishmael whale wrote:

I’m not suggesting that either this or your statement about the family including twins has any material impact on the discussion. I’m just posing the very obvious question that if a gob****e like me can pick you up on two points simply from superficial information gathered from whatever news reports I’ve come across, what might I be able to pick you up on if I had some substantive knowledge. You might have seen a lot of disturbing footage, but I’m not sure you have a real grip on the facts of the case. If it’s a programme you did that won an award I’d sort have expect the knowledge you gained would have stuck.

The documentary featured four families with over a hundred hours of footage from the four.

You you did pick my argument apart. I got north eastern and south eastern health board mixed up. Thats nothing to do with my knowledge of the facts, thats a simple slip of the tongue, or key stroke.

As for the children, the two youngest were difficult to tell apart, and it has been a year. I forgot may have gotten into my head as twins.

My job was not creative or editorial; I just logged, and watched hours upon hours of footage of the family. I worked on the documentary one of about a half dozen I did last year; I never took credit for it.

I think you're being pedantic, you stood judgement over the family early on and feel you need to justify your situation by belittling anyone with any degree of insight beyond the cursory check you did before demanding to know why the family had four autistic children.

ishmael whale

mycroft wrote:

I think you're being pedantic, you stood judgement over the family early on and feel you need to justify your situation by belittling anyone with any degree of insight beyond the cursory check you did before demanding to know why the family had four autistic children.

I’m not trying to belittle you or anyone else and I’m not claiming any particular knowledge of the case, other than what has been reported. I am querying your claim to possess ‘insight’ into the case. You might have seen a lot of distressing footage of the family, and you might find it hard to be objective about the case. But that's not insight.

If its down to perceptions, I have the feeling that you are trying to bring the argument back to how this situation came to pass (even though I have conceded several times that we don’t know enough to comment sensibly) because you feel that is a point where you don’t have to concede any ground.

I don’t see why anyone should have difficulty acknowledging that its unusual to have a family with four autistic children. It should also be possible to acknowledge that, even if services for people with disabilities were generally adequate, it would be difficult to cope with four dependent children in the one household.

mycroft

ishmael whale wrote:

If its down to perceptions, I have the feeling that you are trying to bring the argument back to how this situation came to pass (even though I have conceded several times that we don’t know enough to comment sensibly) because you feel that is a point where you don’t have to concede any ground.
.

And what I'm saying is a family who have been asking for help privately for years, and saying they can't cope with the situation as it. Last year they took part of a documentary which wasn't easy for them if you can imagine who uncomfortable it is for a normal family to undergo the trauma of a camera crew you have understand that this is a family who are trying to make their youngest children express their needs through pictograms. In short they made a desperate appeal a year ago asking for help, and they were ignored until the health board who state the family prove a warm loving environment for their children need their children in care. And the outrage is this, the family ask for help for years and recieved sub standard response until the health board feel the need to tear the family apart. The question is preventive care, why does a family desperately wanting to provide a home for their family, and the health board only intervene at the last minute.

You started moralising that we didn't know the facts of the situation, but were happy to stand judgement over the family. I challenged you telling you that there was another source of infor, you nitpicked details, and backpeddled.

ishmael whale

mycroft wrote:

You started moralising that we didn't know the facts of the situation,

I’m not moralizing. It’s simply the situation. The HSE cannot give an account of their actions, so we don’t have a full picture.

mycroft wrote:

but were happy to stand judgement over the family

Again you try to bring it back to the point I already conceded yesterday.

mycroft wrote:

I challenged you telling you that there was another source of infor, you nitpicked details, and backpeddled.

Describing me as ‘nitpicking details’ is surely only an attempt by you to gloss over the plain fact that a superficial knowledge based on media reports is enough to reveal minor errors in what you are saying. I’m not backpeddling. I’m simply pointing out that your alleged insight is questionable by someone who knows as little about the case as me, how long would you last debating with someone who really understood the case?

Your descriptions of the content of the documentary reveals that life is very difficult if you have four autistic children. No-one disputes that, but you seem to think that if you batter me with enough sensation you can drown out reason. You can’t.

mycroft

ishmael whale wrote:

Describing me as ‘nitpicking details’ is surely only an attempt by you to gloss over the plain fact that a superficial knowledge based on media reports is enough to reveal minor errors in what you are saying. I’m not backpeddling. I’m simply pointing out that your alleged insight is questionable by someone who knows as little about the case as me, how long would you last debating with someone who really understood the case?

Lets get down to brass tacks

In my orginal post I waded in, it'd been a year since I'd looked at the source material and I had some gaps in my knowledge. The two youngest kids have learning disabilities to the point their parents are trying to get them to communication with pictograms. The age difference between them is too brief for any level of autistic diagnosis to have been helpful neither would it have been helpful between them and the older children. The parents wanted a large family, but could have no way know the children would have been autistic at any point before it was too late. While I agree I should have re checked my facts before I posted I don't believe the core point about the family not being aware of autistism before they had the children, is true, and you are now trying to split hairs to save face.

The North eastern/south eastern health border gaff, if the kind of challenge that any reporter would use on news night/prime time if I had got the board name wrong by accident corrected himself, when challenged, and the apologised, and the interviewer kept coming back on the mistake, I think Paxman or O'Riordan would be called on point scoring for the sake of it, and y'know, they'd be right

But potentially some good could be done by promoting a responsible attitude to parenthood.

But my honest first reaction to media coverage of this particular case was incredulity at how anyone would put themselves in the position of having four autistic children. Our cock-eyed debates over contraception have cast a long shadow.

By this reckoning, using your estimate of a two/four year age at diagnosis means it looks like this case involves a decision to have more children despite already having two children with autism and one with dyslexia. I honestly can’t relate to that.

Clearly the dyslexia is only relevant in the context of planning a family where one child already requires extra support. The question relates more to the second and third child, where there seems to be a clear gap of four years between each.

I’m simply advocating promotion of family planning, whereas you seem comfortable with compulsory fertility control for teenagers.

So what are you saying? That the normal rules regarding confidentiality in such cases should be suspended if parents contact the media, or during a by-election, or what? Do you really think the situation would be improved if the HSE and parents of children in care got into public slagging matches on the merits of their respective cases?

So out of all of this all your case really amounts to suggest we should give unquestioning support to anyone who takes their case to the media. And anyone who questions this view should open up a competing thread. So we should have two threads, one headed ‘HSE action totally wrong’ and the other headed ‘HSE action fine by me, pending due process’.

To get you back on track, I’m accepting that I don’t have enough information to comment on how more State promotion of family planning might have helped in this particular case

No we can see a clear path of back pedaling on your part. Without an admission of guilt about factual errors, but then after being called on it on me, after you, stand judgement on the family most clearly in the above posts, and then retract your position without, actually, retracting your position, but then nicely, start accusing me of getting my position wrong.

Hey, nice move, SF may need a PR officer.......you're that stylish.....

Ok could mycroft and Ishmael go back to discussing the topic at hand now,rather than getting bogged down on point scoring exercises.

And mycroft, a bit of advice, theres a preview post button that you can click to proof read your post before clicking the submit post button:)
I suggest you use it to avoid any simple mistakes and they do look like simple mistakes to me, so theres no need for anyone to be making an issue out of them,its distracting from the discussion on the rights and wrongs of what the HSE did here.

From the news coverage I saw of the protest,I gather other parents also bereft of the proper facilities for the care of their children feared that this was going to be a precedent and that is a genuine fear and a genuine reason on its own for the protest.
It would be my view that the best place where possible for anyone to be cared for is in their own home and with the people that love them which in this case is the parents.
Like everyone else,I'm at a loss to understand the Hse's move and its apparent relation to the case being aired in public untill such time as the Hse accounts for its actions.
I suspect that , they will do this(if not already) via the parents and then the parents will pass on the reasoning to us plus the public together with any concern they have against the Hse's reasoning.
The protest is also right,I think, for a second reason and that is, it has put a spotlight on the local Hse making it imperative that they account for their actions properly(It was a large item on the 9pm news the other night for instance), the family can be comforted by the numbers supporting them which should ensure that is done;for if it isnt the media will most likely be probing further at the behest of the protesters.

ishmael whale

Earthman

Let me acknowledge that you are absolutely right, and if I hadn’t left my common sense at home today I’d agree with you.

Mycroft

To be clear, what ‘judgement’ do you think I’m passing on the family?
And what factual error are you suggesting I’ve made?

What I see is my initial comment, which is simply my honest reaction that the case suggests to me a need for family planning, and my later acceptance that we don’t have enough information to make pronouncements in this case. I’m not contesting this, and I don’t see why you keep bringing it up. Unless your trying to follow the Miriam O’Callaghan approach of repeating an irrelevant sensational point in the hope that if you say it with enough confidence no-one will notice you’re lost and rudderless.

I accept that I don’t have enough information to state if the arrival of four children with autism was any more predictable than a Tsunami. I don’t accept that what you have said about your Prime Time documentary tells us anything more than the parents are under great pressure, and that they feel the support received from the HSE is inadequate. (Be absolutely clear – I have not seen this documentary, so I’m just following your account of it.)

The visual images you’ve seen might be disturbing, but as I’ve said before that simply illustrates what no-one contests. But even in a country with reasonable provision for people with disabilities a home with a large number of highly dependant children would probably present disturbing images. That doesn’t add much to the issue at hand.

Are services for people with disabilities inadequate in this country? Probably. The health services in general are shoddy, so I see no reason to believe this sector escaped. Is this a typical case illustrative of that failure? Probably not, but I bet it made great television.

Boggle

and my later acceptance that we don’t have enough information to make pronouncements in this case.

There's more than enough information to have serious concerns. Like I said last time it sends out a dangerous signal to others concerning provision of services for the handicapped: Don't speak out about you plight, or you might lose your kids.

Like I said last time the least I would expect, given the clumsy nature of this case is (and I quote):

What I would like to see, given that this case is in the public domain, is a public representative examine the case and at least come out and say that a) yes they had a reason for reoving the kids and b) it was not an act of retribution from the HSE.

ishmael wrote:

Are services for people with disabilities inadequate in this country? Probably. The health services in general are shoddy, so I see no reason to believe this sector escaped. Is this a typical case illustrative of that failure? Probably not, but I bet it made great television.

Well if a family with 4 autistic children can't get help then what about the other (lesser?!) cases where there is only one? Your whole attitude is dismissive in this thread - you state that we cannot comment on the case as the HSE can't comment. Thats bull - there are several sources of information listed above stating that the family were a good family, and obvious signs of apathy on the HSE's side of things. Any idiot can see this situation stinks...

ishmael whale

Boggle wrote:

What I would like to see, given that this case is in the public domain, is a public representative examine the case and at least come out and say that a) yes they had a reason for reoving the kids and b) it was not an act of retribution from the HSE.

As I understand it such matters are dealt with by the Courts, and that’s how you get your independent scrutiny.

Boggle wrote:

…. there are several sources of information listed above …. Any idiot can see this situation stinks...

All I see listed are media reports. Are you suggesting that the decision to take children into care should depend on the extent to which parents can enlist support of the media?

Boggle

As I understand it such matters are dealt with by the Courts, and that’s how you get your independent scrutiny.

No they'll just rule on where the children will go. They will not rule on the behaviour of the HSE. That's what this thread is about...

All I see listed are media reports. Are you suggesting that the decision to take children into care should depend on the extent to which parents can enlist support of the media?

No. All cases should be treated the same... on both sides. Do you think those kids would have been taken away if they never highlighted the situation?
Why would the media support them if they were bad parents?

ishmael whale

Boggle wrote:

No they'll just rule on where the children will go. They will not rule on the behaviour of the HSE. That's what this thread is about...

I’m not clear on what you are expecting here. The HSE seem to have an obligation to intervene where they see a risk to a child. They apply to the Courts who seem to be able to give them an immediate short-term order, after which they have to make a more detailed case for the child to either stay in care or under their supervision.

If the HSE were found to have taken a child into care for some reason other than because they believed there was a risk, this would presumably come to light at the more detailed hearing and leave the HSE exposed to a claim for damages. Clearly if the Courts found that the HSE acted in good faith, but their fears subsequently proved groundless, there would be no basis for damages. Either way, the essential need that the HSE should be accountable to an independent arbitrator seems to be part and parcel of the system.

That’s unless we want to tear up the Constitution and replace it with a system of trial by print media, with an ultimate right of appeal to Prime Time.

Boggle wrote:

No. All cases should be treated the same... on both sides. Do you think those kids would have been taken away if they never highlighted the situation?

I know nothing about why the HSE acted, and therefore cannot usefully comment. I have already acknowledged that if the HSE are found to have abused their necessary powers, it has frightening implications.

Boggle wrote:

Why would the media support them if they were bad parents?

I think if you reflect on this, particularly bearing in mind what I’ve said above, you’ll let this pass.

Boggle

That’s unless we want to tear up the Constitution and replace it with a system of trial by print media, with an ultimate right of appeal to Prime Time.

Now thats just silly.

I think if you reflect on this, particularly bearing in mind what I’ve said above, you’ll let this pass.

No but I'll give my thinking on it and let you decide if you think I have a point or not...

Firstly, primetime were doing a story on the plight of the disabled. When picking a story I'm sure they had a number of candidates and chose their subject on several grounds. Primarily, this would have been chosen as it is a worst case scenario in many ways and shows up alot of the failings of the state towards the handicapped. Secondly, having 4 autistic kids and getting no help has a sensationalist elemnt in it. Finally, no professional would choose a family which they feel may be negligent towards their kids as this would come back to bite them and reduce their credibility.

If the HSE were found to have taken a child into care for some reason other than because they believed there was a risk, this would presumably come to light at the more detailed hearing and leave the HSE exposed to a claim for damages.

I would say that unless an inquiry is ordered into the circumstances of the seizure then we will probably not know what happened.
The court will only be allowed deal with the family, not the HSE...

ishmael whale

Boggle wrote:

…. no professional would choose a family which they feel may be negligent towards their kids as this would come back to bite them and reduce their credibility.

You are effectively suggesting that we extrapolate from what RTE deems fit to broadcast, and rely on that more than the Courts’ ability to handle applications for care orders from the HSE. Which is what I was getting at when I wondered at making Prime Time the highest court of appeal. Which is when you said I was being silly.

Boggle wrote:

I would say that unless an inquiry is ordered into the circumstances of the seizure then we will probably not know what happened.
The court will only be allowed deal with the family, not the HSE...

I’d imagine the Courts would have a degree of understanding that sometimes the HSE need to act on partial information. But I can’t imagine the Courts quietly underwriting an abuse of power. That said, it is indeed possible that the full facts of the case will never come into the public domain.

Ajnag

Ishmeal I see your points on extracing info from the media, But bear in mind one thing, The full psychological and physiological review of the family in the uk last year stands as a point of medical fact. Just because the medium used to convey this to us was the media dosnt under score that.

Can we at least take the findings of the review to be totally inconsistant with the actions taken by the hse last weekend?

ishmael whale

Ajnag wrote:

Can we at least take the findings of the review to be totally inconsistant with the actions taken by the hse last weekend?

I agree that I would not associate a positive professional assessment of the home environment with children being taken into care. I wouldn't even quibble over the extent to which a UK based professional would be aware of the case, or query why exactly the parents found it necessary to commission such a study. Could the Court still feel it appropriate to grant the HSE an emergency care order? Clearly they did.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2005/0308/212759523HM1OHARA.html
‘….. Mrs O'Hara said they had been asked to undergo a psychiatric assessment at the request of the health board a year and a half ago which, she said, had not raised any issue.

A separate psychological report the couple commissioned from a UK consultant clinical psychologist in October 2004 concluded that both father and mother were "devoted parents".

The report reads: "I conclude that Mrs O'Hara does not suffer from any developmental or underlying mental health or psychological problems which would affect her parenting of her children. She has always enjoyed being a mother and the children have been the highlight of her life.” ‘

billy the squid

Good news!

The five children have to be re-united with their parents. fair play to the judge who ordered this to be done

Judge says five children can be returned to their parents
Carl O'Brien, Social Affairs Correspondent

Five children who were taken into State care a week ago were last night due to be reunited with their parents in Kells, Co Meath, following a court battle against the local health authority.

Amid jubilant scenes at Trim District Court last night, Pádraig and Mary O'Hara expressed relief that their "week-long nightmare" was over and said they were delighted at the outcome of their case.

The Health Service Executive (North Eastern Area) sought to place the couple's children - four of whom are autistic - in State care a week ago against the parents' wishes. Mr and Mrs O'Hara had been giving media interviews at the time complaining about the lack of support services for their children.

Following an eight-hour private sitting of Trim District Court yesterday, Judge David Anderson dismissed an interim care order taken out by the health authority.

The HSE, which had insisted the parents undergo a psychiatric assessment before any attempt could be made to reunite them with their children, declined to comment last night.

The health authority's treatment of the couple prompted criticism this week from campaigners and support groups. Independent MEP Kathy Sinnott called for an apology from the HSE.

Following the outcome of the case last night, Mr and Mrs O'Hara hugged tearful family members and friends at the courthouse. In a statement read by their solicitor, Roger Murray, they expressed delight with the ruling and thanked their friends and supporters.

The O'Hara's family doctor and chairman of the Irish Society for Autism, Dr James Hayes, said he was ecstatic at the outcome. "This frightful event should never have occurred," he said. "Whatever the crisis, there are other ways of dealing with it. Justice has been done and the family have been reunited."

Arrangements were being made last night to reunite the children with their parents. The parents agreed on Friday of last week to let the children be put in respite care on a voluntary basis after social workers and gardaí arrived at their home with a care order seeking to commit the children to State care.

Fionn (16), who is dyslexic, Oisín (13) and Blain (9), who are autistic, have been staying at a guesthouse in Drogheda for the last week. Seadna (5) and Cionnaola (4) have been staying at a residential unit without any contact with their parents.

Irish Autism Alliance chairman Cormac Rennick said the group had lodged a formal complaint about the treatment of the parents.

He said the O'Haras were "dedicated and devoted parents" whose lives revolved around the care of their children.

Ms Sinnott said: "We have to have an apology from the HSE and an assurance that this will never happen again. Taking away your children is the worst threat the State can make."

The HSE was represented in court yesterday by a four-person legal team along with a number of health authority officials who gave evidence during the court sitting.

Every parent's worst fear:

source: Ireland.com

Nuttzz

billy the squid wrote:

Good news!

The five children have to be re-united with their parents. fair play to the judge who ordered this to be done

it is great news alright, what were the HSE playing at, rock the boat and we will grab your kids, reminds me of the old joke about social workers and rottweilers.....

ishmael whale

This is significant, and now the HSE clearly do have a case to answer where there is a public interest at stake. They get these powers because we recognise a need to act quickly where children might be at risk. Abusing these powers to silence dissent is truly frightening.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1357903&issue_id=12209
“…The judge refused the order after an eight-hour legal battle yesterday at Trim District Court.
The case was held in camera, but in a rare move the judge allowed the family to publish an agreed statement afterwards….”