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 I thank Deputy Carthy for his amendment. In paragraph (1A), in effect what Deputy Carthy is seeking to achieve is already the law under the provision. Deputy Carthy's amendment states "where a guardian ad litem of the child, another guardian of the child, or a relative of the child ... is of the opinion that an application ... ought to be made in the best interests of the child", he can request Tusla to do so. The situation at present is that if Tusla believes it is in the best interests of the child - that is the second limb of the test we discussed under amendment No. 1 - it must bring the application, where there has been a conviction of murder or manslaughter. That is a requirement. The purpose of Deputy Carthy's first paragraph is to achieve something that will happen in any event. As Deputy Carthy fairly acknowledged I said on Committee Stage, there is nothing to stop relatives, guardians ad litem or other guardians of the child contacting Tusla to say they believe an application should be brought. If it is the case that an application is in the best interests of the child, Tusla must bring it. My real concern about the proposed amendment, however, is the requirement in paragraph (1B) for Tusla to provide reasons to the person who made the request if an application is not made. Although Deputy Carthy does not define "relative", we will assume it has the same definition as it has in section 12I. Deputies will see that I included a very broad definition of "relative". Under this provision, there would be a requirement on Tusla to set out to a broad range of family members reasons an application is not being made. There may be reasons that are sensitive or personal which Tusla might not want to give out because of the central importance of the child being protected. They could be matters confidential to the child, such as the child's views. I appreciate what Deputy Carthy is trying to do in all the amendments but I have to try to ensure that, at the end of this, we get a Bill that is coherent and will work and I am concerned that doing this would undermine the effectiveness of the legislation. On balance, I do not think it would improve the legislation. I say that with the greatest of respect for Deputy Carthy. I am fearful the obligation on Tusla to provide reasons would become quite a legal process. It would recognise that any reasons it gives out would have to thorough and that might have an impact on the decisions it makes. It is always the case that if Tusla is not fulfilling its public law duty as required, there are remedies available to family members, guardians ad litem or the other guardians by way of judicial review. That is not the outcome anyone wants but there is a certain architecture to this legislation that will permit families to engage with Tusla. It permits family members or relatives to be put on notice of the application before the courts. If family members are put on notice of the application, they will be given a right to be heard by the District Court so their views will be well aired before the court. In balancing the rights of relatives, or the next of kin as Deputy Carthy referred to, it is important they have a process in which their views can be accommodated and listened to. I have included that in section 12I and the process whereby the application is made and people can contact Tusla is sufficient. I just do not want to put Tusla on a defensive, litigious footing when it comes to communications from family members where Tusla has a statutory obligation to provide reasons to those people that it is not bringing the application. I do not want that to become the dominant part. We want this to be as simple as possible. There is a conviction for murder or manslaughter. It is in the best interests of the child for an application to be made under this section. Tusla goes promptly to the District Court. The District Court considers the application. Family members will apply to the District Court to be heard and put on notice. I am sure in many instances the court will permit that while not turning it into a situation where every family member has a separate entitlement to be heard. We can then have a prompt decision which, as always, is guided by what is in the best interests of the very unfortunate children who are left behind. --- 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