Courts

Families of children with special needs resolve court cases alleging abuse at primary school

Families sued over what they claimed was the school board’s inadequate response to the allegations, which remain under investigation

The cases were listed for hearing this week in the High Court before Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell. Photograph: Chris Maddaloni/Collins

Aodhan O'Faolain
Wed May 8 2024 - 17:48

Resolutions have been reached in High Court actions brought by the families of five children with special needs over allegations that the pupils were mentally and physically abused at their primary school.

The allegations were made by a now former staff member who claimed the children in the school’s special autism unit were pulled and dragged “countless times” by another teacher and a special-needs assistant (SNA).

The families sued over what they claimed was the school board’s inadequate response to the allegations, which remain under investigation by authorities including Tusla, the Child and Family Agency.

In judicial review proceedings against the board and the Minister for Education the families sought various reliefs including orders requiring the board to carry out an investigation into the allegations.

READ MORE

They also sought an order requiring the school to place the two staff members on administrative leave pending the outcome of the various inquiries.

The respondents opposed the action. None of the parties can be identified.

The cases were listed for hearing this week before Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell. They did not proceed after the court was told the parties reached an out-of-court arrangement.

The sides agreed the children in question would be provided with an educational placement that did not involve the identified members of staff, pending the completion of an investigation by the Child and Family Agency, which was a notice party to the actions.

The sides could not agree on the question of who should pay the legal costs.

In a written ruling on the issue of costs, the judge said he did not consider the proceedings moot or to have been withdrawn. He said the proceedings were compromised when the families’ proposal was accepted by the respondents.

The school board has not made any concession in respect of its investigations nor has it agreed to place the two staff members on administrative leave, the judge said.

While the school has been put to considerable expense in preparing for the hearings, the judge said it seemed that the board could have formulated a proposal along the lines ultimately suggested by the applicants.

Noting the parents’ concerns, the judge said the school’s response was to fight the case rather than identify a resolution that met their concerns.

Joe Jeffers SC, for the board, said his client was in a “difficult position” regarding the complaints.

The school would have been in a better position to defend an application for costs had it offered at the early stages to arrange to have the children educated without the involvement of the two staff until the various investigations were completed, said the judge.

In the circumstances, the judge said, he was making a modest award of costs in favour of the applicants.

The applicant in the first of the five cases, the judge said, should receive 25 per cent of their legal costs from the school. Given the nature of duplication involved in the actions, the judge said he was making no order as to costs in the other four cases.

The families, represented by Derek Shortall SC and Cormac Hynes, brought proceedings over their concerns about their children’s safety following the “whistleblower’s” claims.

It was alleged that the SNA and teacher regularly shouted in the children’s faces, grabbed them by the neck and chin, pushed them into sensory rooms by themselves, and forced them to complete work while very distressed.

The whistleblower also claims the staff members made directions that a child should be left in wet and soiled underwear “because the child should know better”.

The whistleblower said the SNA said children should never be fully cleaned after a toilet accident.

The families claimed the allegations were brought to the school’s attention in spring 2023, but they were made aware of them by the school principal only last October.

As well as seeking orders placing the two staff members on administrative leave, they wanted declarations including that the board had failed to comply with its own and the Minister’s policies on investigations.

They further sought a declaration that the board placed the procedural rights of school staff above the rights of constitutional rights of vulnerable children in its care.

The claims were denied.

LATEST STORIES