Guardianship of Infants and Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2026: Report and Final Stages Dail Éireann — 2026-06-17 ============================================================ Jim O'Callaghan (FF), Dublin Bay South Like my colleagues, I too welcome Mr. David French to the Gallery. I commend him on his perseverance and the encouragement he has provided, not only to me in terms of trying to ensure the legislation could be introduced to the Houses of the Oireachtas but also in terms of the encouragement and support to other Members of the House. It is unusual to have legislation that is universally supported. I am very conscious Members are perfectly entitled to put down amendments but it is unusual to have legislation that is so universally supported. This is in no small part due to the presence and campaigning of David French. I thank Deputy Carthy for his amendment, which seeks to do two things. It seeks to amend section 12C, which at present, under the draft that was approved on Committee Stage, requires the Child and Family Agency to bring an application as soon as practicable but not later than six months after the conviction of the person for manslaughter or murder. Deputy Carthy's amendment wishes to amend this so that it states "3 months". I cannot accept the amendment because I believe the statutory provision that is there at present is fairly clear to the Child and Family Agency. It requires it to bring an application as soon as practicable. This requires it to move with considerable expediency and the timeline limit on which the application can be made is six months. My concern is that by changing the statutory limitation from six months to three months I will find myself in a situation where the Child and Family Agency will recognise that it cannot get all of the material before the courts within the three months and we will encourage applications for extensions of time. As Deputy Carthy is aware, under the legislation such applications for an extension of time are permitted and sometimes they may be necessary. My concern is that if we limit it so tightly to three months, there will necessarily be constant immediate applications for extensions. It is also important to point out that when it comes to making this application it will, presumably, be an application that is made on affidavit by Tusla, in which it will have to set out the basis for the application. It will have to provide evidential proof of the conviction by way of the order from the Central Criminal Court. It will take a bit of time to do this. It will also need to put before the court evidence that it states is necessary to show that the second requirement for the implication of the application has been met, which is that the convicted parent has failed in his or her obligation to the child. This brings me to the second part of Deputy Carthy's amendment, which is that he seeks to remove from the consideration the test that Tusla must be satisfied the convicted guardian has failed in his or her duty towards the child concerned. The reason this is included, and I emphasised this on Committee Stage, is based on the constitutional threshold for State intervention in the family. It is important, as I have stated repeatedly, that this provision is not perceived as being a penalty imposed on a guardian who is convicted of manslaughter or murder. That is not the purpose of it. If it were the purpose, challenges would be brought to it on grounds of equality. The purpose is to trigger an application in circumstances where there is a conviction of a guardian of the murder or manslaughter of another guardian and there is a belief that the convicted guardian has failed in his or her duty towards the child concerned. I agree with virtually everyone here that in the vast majority of circumstances where an individual guardian has been convicted of murder or manslaughter of another guardian and there are children, this is in itself a child protection issue and the person who is convicted has failed in his or her duty towards the child concerned. To use the example that Deputy Carthy gave a few moments ago, which is present in one of his forthcoming amendments, say there was a situation where a female guardian who had repeatedly been subjected to domestic violence was prosecuted for murder or manslaughter and was convicted. There could be situations where Tusla, as the party bringing the application, could look to see who else was a potential guardian of the children. It could determine in this situation and in this context that it would not be appropriate to bring an application because the mother of the children should remain as the guardian. In such circumstances it would be inappropriate for such an application to be made. For this reason I cannot accept the amendment, notwithstanding that we all agree with the sentiment that we want applications such as this to be brought as soon as is reasonably practicable. I cannot remove the second limb of the triggering test, which is the requirement for Tusla to be satisfied that the convicted guardian has failed in his or her duty towards the children. Tusla is the Child and Family Agency and it is the appropriate entity to bring such an application. I know in due course this afternoon we will be discussing amendments from Deputy Carthy on other family members being permitted to bring an application. This would create a very contentious and difficult scenario for the family and the children in certain circumstances. This is a public law issue. Because of this, the public statutory body responsible for the protection of children is the appropriate entity to bring the application. For this reason I respectfully say I cannot agree to Deputy Carthy's first amendment. --- 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/dail/2026-06-17/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-09-21T01:01:09+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-06-17