Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I do but, looking at them, I think there are some I can explore in the following week. I would like just to go back for clarification on some of the other questions. That would probably be a better use of time in the context of the report and the recommendations.

I am just processing the responses. Mr. Quinlan went a little into the case that would be made in respect of harm and so on, but I am still stuck on the phrase "is likely to be" because it makes an assumption of harm or a prediction of harm. I just wonder how in court a case can be made on the basis of "likely to be". That is like someone saying I am likely to murder somebody and going to court and saying to the judge, "I would like to lock her up because she is likely to murder somebody." It does not make any sense in a legal context. I know Mr. Quinlan tried to answer, but I think it is a question for the Department to answer in the context of language and legal language. Obviously, it is a legal process to intervene in and look for care of children, so to say somebody is likely to be ill-treated - everyone is born likely to be something. Whether it happens or not is another thing. It does not feel like it is good legal language to use within the general scheme.

That is something I would like to go back over. On the Department's answer, it was said it would have to make an application to reduce from five to three years. I still do not understand the intention or reason that is in the general scheme and why we want to reduce from five to three years. An application must still be made and there must be criteria for what meets the threshold of reasons for reducing from five to three years but understanding the intention for that reduction is important. On voluntary care agreements, children subject to court proceedings, like I said, have a guardian ad litembut someone in the voluntary care system does not. Is that correct?