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 am sure if somebody writes to Tusla and says they would like it to bring an application in respect of a conviction which took place, either retrospectively or one which happens after the commencement of the Act, and asks for it to take an application, as they are entitled to, I would think that in most scenarios Tusla will write a reply and give an explanation. It may not be necessary for it to withhold information. However, there must unquestionably be times where Tusla, having considered what is in the best interests of the child, having received some information from a guardian ad litem in respect of the child or based on other factors which it has taken into account, might not do so. If there is a statutory obligation on it to provide reasons, it could be to provide reasons to the parents or siblings of the convicted guardian. There are sensitive reasons for not wanting to have a statutory obligation in place for that. Putting in a statutory obligation that Tusla has to provide reasons would be damaging to the legislation. Obviously if somebody brings an application and Tusla consistently says "No", they could seek a judicial review but they would want to be able to point out that there is an administrative or public law failing by Tusla in terms of not complying with the legislation.
We need to get this legislation in place and see how it operates in its early days. I have no doubt there will be a necessity to come back in due course and we will be able to improve it. However, if we start putting in a statutory obligation on Tusla to provide reasons to every relative, there will be relatives of the convicted parent and relatives of the murdered parent and they do not always get on. There will be different views as to how the kids should be brought up, how the guardianship of the kids should operate and who should have guardianship for them. The kids have been through an awful trauma as it is. The last thing we want to do is put them in the middle of a family law dispute, which, in effect, is what would happen if we have competing relatives arguing in front of a judge about what they say is the best interest of the child. They should not have the primary role. It should be about public law, Tusla coming in and having an opportunity for the voice of the child to be heard by the judge. The judge can hear applications from relatives to be joined as notice parties. The judge may say "I don't want to hear the notice parties; I'm going to go solely based on what is in the best interests of the child, as advocated to me by Tusla." Alternatively, and probably more likely, a judge will allow a relative to be joined. However, the last thing a judge wants is a representative of the murdered guardian on one side and the killer on the other side, with the kids stuck in the middle. That is why I think we need to leave this with public law, but I will certainly consider the matter in due course as the legislation goes on.

---

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