Mother who kept 'highly intelligent' son out of school escapes jail

The woman, who is in her fifties, pleaded guilty at Dublin District Court today to breaking the Education (Welfare) Act for not complying with an official warning to ensure her child went to school.

He missed 276 days in three years and Judge Anthony Halpin heard teachers and the boy’s classmates had begged for him to be let come back to school.

The prosecution has been brought by the Child and Family Agency (CFA).

Education and welfare officer Michelle Reid agreed with prosecution solicitor Orla Crowe that a school attendance notice was sent to the woman in June last year and due to non-improvement the court prosecution followed.

The judge heard that when the boy was in third class he missed 47 days.

In fourth class he was absent on 118 out of 176 days and he has been absent for every day of fifth class, 111 days so far.

Judge Halpin remarked that this came to about two thirds of school days.

The offence can result in a fine of up to one month and a €1,000 fine.

The minimum school leaving age is 16 years or the completion of three years of post-primary education.

Ms Reid said the school had a pupil-teacher ratio of one teacher for every 20 pupils. It also had special needs assistants and was able to offer a lot of support including a school liaison officer.

Describing it as a “quite unique case”, the education and welfare officer said the teen was “a highly intelligent young boy” and popular among his peers.

Judge Halpin was told teachers called out to the home and other pupils stayed in contact with the boy and tried to urge him to come back.

Ms Crowe asked the officer if this had helped encourage a return to school to which she replied that “all supports and interventions had been exhausted at this point.”

Other school placements in the same area had been offered but the parent was adamant her son was to stay enrolled at the same school.

The officer said the boy needed to complete primary school before looking for a secondary level school.

Judge Halpin wanted to know the actual reason for the child missing so much school and the education officer said having met the mother regularly there was sense of hopelessness and apathy in terms of the parent.

The education officer agreed with the judge’s assessment that fault rested with the woman not the child.

Defence counsel Niall Storan said that would be disputed and he added that the proceedings have “focussed” his client’s mind. He also said the woman possibly had psychological problems.

He said the single mother was at the “end of her tether” and found it difficult to deal with her son’s school issue.

The court heard the accused had no prior convictions and her barrister pointed out that school attendance had not been an issue with one of her older children.

Judge Halpin said the 12-year-old boy was not an average student and was intelligent enough to be able to catch up and have the skills to face first year of secondary school.

The boy was capable of a great career, he said, adding, “I’m glad we caught this now”.

Pleading for leniency, Mr Storan said the woman, who did not address the court, accepted responsibility and that she had not done enough.

Judge Halpin said the genuine concern of the court was to get the boy back to school. A psychiatric report, to which the defendant objected, was not necessary and would have stretched the jurisdiction of the court, he said.

He did not think the woman, who is on social welfare, would be able to pay a €1,000 fine.

Finalising the case, he sought an undertaking from her to do her utmost to send her child to school in future.

On that condition he suspended the one-month sentence for a period of 18-months saying he believed it was the only way to get the child to school again.

A small fine would not have satisfied the court given the significance of the boy’s absences from school, he said.