This case was brought by children suing through their mothers, guardians and others, and dealt with the issue of disadvantaged children in need of accommodation and treatment in high support units. The applicants asserted that the state was under a constitutional obligation to provide the children with special care and appropriate educational facilities.
Enforcement of the decision was not an issue, although it is significant that the Supreme Court judgment in the case caused substantial criticism in the media of judicial conservatism. The problems in terms of the facilities provided for children with behavioral problems persist.
The case is significant because of the skeptical tone taken by the majority towards the very concept of unenumerated constitutional socio-economic rights. T.D. and another case, Sinnott v. Minister for Education [2001] IESC 63; [2001] 2 IR 505, were key cases in the Supreme Court’s general trend away from recognition and enforcement of such rights. However, according to one commentator, “…subsequent decisions suggest that the Supreme Court may not have completely shut the door on the recognition of certain (unenumerated) economic and social rights in exceptional circumstances [seefor example, the case Re Article 26 and the Health (Amendment)(No. 2) Bill 2004, [2005] 1 IR 105].”
(Updated July 2015)