A family with 16 children and all eight of the older ones are in the criminal justice system
Court hears of parents sending children in for ‘targetted’ shoplifting spree
OUT of 16 children in one family, the older eight are in our criminal justice system and the younger eight are quickly following suit, a court heard last week.
The children – who live in ‘appalling’ conditions at their Longford home – are ‘trained’ to shoplift, with the judge hearing their case remarking the parents had ‘abdicated themselves of any responsibility of bringing their children up in society’.
‘I believe the children are actively involved in theft and bringing the spoils back home to be shared,’ he said.
The disturbing picture was given at a sitting of the Children’s Court in Longford last week with gardaí telling the judge they have a ‘genuine concern’ for the children.
Children aged from just seven in the family are known to be involved in shoplifting, with an eight-yearold boy stealing an autistic boy’s phone in recent weeks. The phone was found on a bedside table in the family home during a Garda search last month, the court was told.
Gardaí are so concerned about the children they have made a staggering 70 referrals to Tusla about conditions at the family home in the last year alone.
The children have no duvet covers on their bed or clean clothes in their wardrobes. The bath is full of rubbish and the toilets and sinks are not working.
Superintendent Jim Delaney told the court: ‘Of 16 children, the older eight are in the criminal justice system and we have another eight coming up behind them.
‘The youngest eight are moving steadily in the footsteps of the oldest eight.’
Details of the family’s squalid living conditions and the children’s shoplifting were given during a hearing in relation to two children aged 12 and 13 who are before the courts charged with a combined 37 offences. Pleas have yet to be entered.
Last month the Irish Mail on Sunday revealed how the sisters – who cannot be named because of their ages – were arrested at their home and taken to a Garda station where they were interviewed by specialist gardaí in the company of an appropriate adult.
Gardaí then sought direction from the Director of Public Prosecutions and the girls were charged.
The younger sister is accused of 16 counts of shoplifting, while her 13-year-old sister was charged with 21 counts.
Supt Delaney said there is just ‘a short window’ to take action as gardaí are concerned for their younger siblings.
Sergeant Darren Conlon, who is working closely with the family, said that everyone in the courtroom has a ‘a genuine concern for the children’.
Listing some of the charges against the 12-year-old and 13-yearold sisters, he said gardaí believe these are ‘targeted’ shoplifting incidents and that the children are being sent to shoplift by their parents.
‘On January 4, 2020, (the 12-yearold) stole a jacket worth €220 and was caught red-handed,’ he added.
‘On November 13, 2019, (the 13year-old) stole cosmetics to the value of €545. We believe they’re being trained and passing on their training.’
On March 8, 2020, he said, one of the younger children accompanied the two sisters to a retail premises where gardaí believe he was being trained to shoplift by the two older girls.
On May 6, 2020, Sgt Conlon said three boys, aged seven, eight and nine, stole €45 worth of property from a local pharmacy.
On May 22 the eight-year-old-boy stole a mobile phone from another boy.
‘An eight-year-old boy with autism was outside when he was approached by the child, who grabbed the phone from the kid,’ Sgt Conlon added.
‘Every app and game he needed was on the phone.
‘We located the phone on the bedside of one of the children asleep in the house.
‘When I showed it to the mother, she claimed ownership of it. She had cleared it of numbers but all of the apps were still on it, so that’s how I knew it was the stolen phone.’ Housing conditions for the children are appalling, according to gardaí, with no bedclothes, clothing in piles and no clean clothing hanging in the wardrobes.
‘There seems to be no showering facilities as the shower is filled with clothing and the bath is full of rubbish. The sink and toilets are not working,’ said Inspector Frank Finn.
Judge Seamus Hughes told the court: ‘Neither parent is a good role model for any of their children’.
The judge had requested Tusla attend the court after the initial hearing of the case last month.
A Tusla representative told the court last week it is doing everything it can to help the family, but said the agency staff ‘don’t have a magic wand that’ll fix everything’.
The court was told that gardaí had contacted
Tusla on May
22 and that agency staff had attended the home. However, staff did not conduct a full search of the property and later reported that they were satisfied with the conditions that they found.
‘Housing conditions are only one aspect of this, said Judge Hughes. ‘I’m not as concerned with that as I am with the children having that many charges against them.
‘The other side is does Tusla take eight children and board them elsewhere at the expense of hundreds of thousands of euro?
‘The parents have abdicated themselves of any responsibility of bringing their children up in society.
‘Prison is not the answer. I can’t send children between the ages of 12 and 14 to prison. We don’t want a disaster on our hands in two or three years either.’
Supt Delaney told how after the case was brought to Judge Hughes’ attention at Longford District Court late last month there was an incident outside the courthouse which involved the family’s 16-year-old son.
‘What transpired outside on the streets is two children were openly calling out other people to fight,’ he said. ‘I witnessed (the father) abdicate his parental responsibility. He made no effort to stop his son.’
Judge Hughes acknowledged Supt Delaney’s concerns but said that the child in question was ‘beyond salvation’ and that his concern was for the younger children in the family.
The Tusla representative told the court that some visits had not been taking place due to Covid-19 restrictions, but she added that they has been working with the children aged eight years old and upwards.
‘We have one person working with the girls and one working with the boys,’ she explained.
‘The parents do engage with us and they get the children to school.
‘But the children seem to do their own thing – even the younger ones. We’re trying to get a routine working at home but we can only do so much.’
She added that Tusla are reluctant to take the children into care because ‘it’s not going to fix the situation and it’s not going to solve anything’.
‘We would prefer to work with
‘Shower is full of clothing, bath full of rubbish’
‘If we could get a rural house it would help’
them in the community,’ she added. ‘Taking the younger children could be a possibility, but they have a very close bond with their parents.’
One of the common denominators with the children was engagement in criminal activity, Judge Hughes noted.
‘I believe the children are actively involved in theft and bringing the spoils back home to be shared,’ he said.
The Tusla representative insisted that the children have a sense of belonging at home.
‘But I wouldn’t question that there isn’t a discouragement of theft,’ she added.
‘We will be trying with them. The parents aren’t denying us access.
‘We’ve had one-on-one time with the children and their health needs are met. They’re thriving. But the housing is awful.’
Solicitor for the defence, John Quinn, explained that the family is still in the house because of Covid19 restrictions.
Proceedings had commenced to get them a better property, but those had been suspended due to the pandemic.
But, he added, it would be ideal if they could be housed in a rural area, far enough away from any town that the children couldn’t access shops so easily.
‘They came from a rural setting at one stage and we feel if they’re rehomed in a rural setting, they might be better,’ he told the court.
‘The centre of town is not ideal. If we could get a rural house it would help.’
As the hearing drew to a close Judge Hughes remarked: ‘There’s nothing I can do. If there was, I’d do it.
‘I have confidence in the social workers.
‘I don’t have the same confidence in the council. This problem is not going away.’
The case was adjourned to a subsequent hearing.