Guardianship of Infants and Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2026: Committee and Remaining Stages
Seanad Éireann — 2026-06-30
============================================================

Jim O'Callaghan (FF), Dublin Bay South

I welcome David French and his family to the Gallery. Like colleagues, I commend them on their campaigning in this area. I also thank Senator Keogan for the amendments she has put down. It is obvious that a lot of work went into them and I commend her on that. I similarly commend Senator McCormack and Sinn Féin on their amendments.
I also thank Senator Stephenson for her contribution.
I recognise that all of the amendments being put down are motivated by what the Senators believe is in the best interests of the child concerned, taking into account the family. I will deal with the amendments individually. The system that operates at present is what is referred to as a public law response to a terrible event that happens. We are dealing with circumstances where one guardian parent has been convicted of the murder or manslaughter of another guardian parent. In those circumstances I think that requires a public law response. I do not think that it is a private family issue that the family should be forced to litigate to bring the issues before the court. It is for that reason the legislation is very much public law legislation. It gives responsibility to the Child and Family Agency to bring this application within six months where there has been a conviction for murder or manslaughter and the agency believes that such an application is in the best interests of the child. I am fully aware, and we are all fully aware, that when a tragic event happens, a murderous event like this, the family around the child are enormously supportive and important. Of course, one of the limitations of the legislation that we are introducing is that it is only triggered once there has been a conviction. Once there has been a conviction the time period starts to run. As I mentioned on the last occasion, however, there is the terrible day of the killing and the issue of what happens to the children. We know in most instances that it is the surviving family members, a brother or sister of the deceased guardian or parent, are the ones who actually just on a practical basis take over minding the very young children. If they are not available, obviously Tusla has to come and get involved and bring an application under the Child Care Act for the immediate care of the child.
It is important to note, however, that the legislation I am bringing before the House takes account of the very important role that families play in the lives of children such as the ones caught up in the type of scenario we are describing. Section 12I (1) of the Bill provides for notice parties to proceedings under this part. It states that when an application such as this is being made by Tusla the first persons it must notify are any guardians. Obviously that will include the convicted guardian but also any other guardians in existence should be notified as well. Section 12I (2) provides that a relative of the child concerned may seek leave to be joined as a notice party to proceedings under this part. It defines "relative" as meaning a "grandparent, brother, sister, uncle or aunt ..." and it sets it out in detail there. The scenario that will arise is that if and when Tusla brings the application a relative can apply to be a notice party. I think that is appropriate because the District Court will decide whether it is appropriate for a notice party or relative to be made a notice party to the proceedings. Obviously, if a person is a notice party he or she will get to be heard in the proceedings and will play a role in it.
We also need to recognise the reality of the fact that families do not always come with one harmonious and homogeneous position. Let us consider the proposed definition of "relative" that is being put forward by Senator Keogan in her first amendment. Subsection (2) of the Senator's first amendment includes a grandparent of the child or an aunt or uncle of the child. To get into the reality of this, this will include the parents of the deceased and indeed the parents of the convicted person, or the siblings of the deceased and-or the siblings of the convicted person. The proceedings are about the protection of the children. That is my motivation and that is what motivated David French in seeking to change this law. It is all about what is in the best interests of the children. What I do not want to see happening is that an application before the District Court turns into a row between different sections of the family. That can happen and it is something that I have to ensure does not happen.
I will deal with amendment No. 1. As I mentioned, the Bill deals with how relatives can be made notice parties. I referred to section 12I. Another concern I have is with subsection (3) in amendment No. 1 from Senator Keogan. It would require An Garda Síochána, the General Register Office and any other public body to provide information notwithstanding any enactment that prevents its disclosure. That could raise a data protection issue. Section 12H of the Bill already allows the bodies named in it to share information but only where it is in accordance with law and is necessary and proportionate, and it provides for regulations and for measures to safeguard the rights of the people whose information is shared.
The last subsection of Senator Keogan's amendment has the potential to tie the hands of the court in making appropriate provision for the child. I do not want a situation where a child is in need of another guardian being appointed, or a care order to be made, and the court cannot do so because an administrative step of notifying a particular relative has not been taken. That is one of the consequences - I think of Senator McCormack's amendment - if there is the requirement to notify all next to kin, which is not defined, or relatives, which I know Senator Keogan has defined. If there is a requirement that the relatives must be notified, then the case cannot be heard until they are all notified and there are affidavits of service showing that the aunts, the uncles and the grandparents have been served and proof that they have been served, and then there is the issue of trying to determine their view in respect of it. I am being frank. I do not want the family to be the driving force in these applications because that is very much a private law response. We have to recognise that the family is not going to have, in many instances, a consistent view in respect of it.
On amendment No. 7, I appreciate the best of intentions of Senator Keogan to ensure that the relative who is concerned for the welfare of a child is able to act. What the Bill seeks to do is put in place a public law determination of what is in the best interests of the child. That is the paramount consideration. I would be concerned that if we were going to delegate responsibility to certain other family members or give them a say, that would make it a private law matter to be determined by the family. We need to recognise that this could put a lot of pressure on the family as well, a family that has been through a terrible and appalling trauma when we consider that one parent of the remaining children has been convicted of killing the other parent of the remaining children. We need to ensure that this is done in a sensitive way that does not simply generate a row in the court. Amendment No. 7 would allow any relative to bring proceedings to restrict or remove a guardian, whether or not Tusla has done so. That is not a public law response: it is private litigation within the family. Such an application would not rest on any assessment by Tusla of the welfare of the child. It could be contested between family members. It could draw the surviving victim guardian back into proceedings brought by relatives. It could lead to competing applications about the same child. This is a very significant point because then we would have competing views presented in terms of the application by different members of the family. A relative who has concerns is not without a voice under the Bill. I refer to section 12I (2), which states that a family member can apply to be a notice party.
Amendment No. 17 serves only as a function if amendment No. 7 is accepted. I do not propose to accept amendment No. 7.
Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are two alternative versions of the same new subsection in section 12C. At most, one of them could be accepted. I note what is said but I do not intend to accept these amendments. I appreciate the intention behind them, which is that the court should hear from the child's family and from others close to the child before it makes an order. I have set out a procedure there which I think facilitates that. The amendment would invite argument about whether the court had consulted widely enough and it could delay the making of an order in the case where the safety or welfare of the child requires that the order be made without delay.
We want the court to be able to look at the totality of the circumstances and it is better, in my view, that it retains the discretion to do so, rather than being directed by statute as to whose views it must seek in every case.
Throughout the legislation, in the way it has been drafted, the best interests of the child are the primary purpose. In terms of hearing the voice of the child, section 12F applies Part VA of the Childcare Act 1991 to proceedings. This provides for the appointment of a guardian ad litem whose role is to ascertain the views and wishes of the child and to convey them to the court.
Section 12I requires that each guardian, including the guardian ad litem, be given notice and allows a relative, broadly defined, to seek to be joined as a notice party.
I will now deal with amendments Nos. 16 and 18. Senator Stephenson referred to amendment No. 19, which I will come to presently. I do not accept these amendments, which both aim to accomplish substantially the same result, namely, the notification or joining as notice parties of the next of kin. As I mentioned, next of kin could have no relationship with the deceased or their child and may, in some circumstances, be difficult to identify or locate. Again, I ask Senators to look at subsection 12I. I think that is a very appropriate one and it will allow the court to determine who should be joined as a notice party.
Amendment No. 19 is in the name of Senator McCormack and others. Senator Stephenson also spoke to it. The first part is fairly straightforward. It does not need to be made a statutory provision. It simply says where a guardian or relative of the child is of the opinion that an application ought to be made and it is in the best interests of the child, they can request Tusla to do so. There is nothing stopping them; they do not need a law. If you are the brother, sister or parent of a deceased guardian, you can, of course, write to Tusla and say you would like it to invoke the provisions in respect of it. Where it does get difficult is in subsection (2), which is what Senator Stephenson spoke to, along with Senator McCormack, that there would be a requirement on Tusla to provide reasons. There could be very sensitive reasons, based on personal information related to the child or in respect of others, as to why the application is not being made. I would be concerned about that information just being able to be given out to individuals simply because they write - and it could be someone who does not have any connection with the child other than being a relative - and ask Tusla for the reasons it brought an application. It would be problematic to force Tusla to set out the reasons.
I very much appreciate the amendments that were put down. I know the desire of all three Senators who have spoken to this is to make this legislation as effective as possible. I commend them on their attempts to do so but once we go down the route of bringing in the family as the driving force, as the Senators will know themselves, problems are going to arise. Why not get the legislation enacted and up and running as it is? We can then see how Tusla performs in its functions. Fortunately, applications under this legislation will be few and far between, I hope. If there are many of them, it would be a sign that the horrific crime to which Valerie French was subjected has happened again. Fortunately, there will be very few of them. Let us see how the legislation progresses and let us not put responsibility on the families. The families have been through a lot already. Let us leave this as the State having a role to play and see how it progresses.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-06-30/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:07+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-06-30