Ms Michelle Monaghan:

I believe there are shortfalls in the legislation that enable Tusla to escape prosecution when it fails to protect the children it has taken into State care. Tusla was set up under the Child and Family Agency Act 2013 and took over child welfare and protection from the HSE on 1 January 2014. The agency is bound by the 1991 Childcare Act. Its business name, registered with the Companies Registration Office, is “Tusla”. The nature of its business, registered with the CRO, is stated to be as follows. “Tusla” is a name used by the Child and Family Agency established under statute under the Child and Family Agency Act 2013. The Child and Family Agency is now the dedicated State agency responsible for improving well-being and outcomes for children. The Child and Family Agency sought to register the name “Tusla” as a business name to demonstrate that the name is associated with the agency. Under the functions of the agency as set out in section 8(1)(b) of the Child and Family Agency Act 2013, it is stated that a function of the agency is to: “support and promote the development, welfare and protection of children”.

In my opinion, Tusla is a business registered to promote the welfare and protection of children and therein lies the crux of the matter: the promotion of child welfare and protection falls short of the responsibility of providing child welfare and protection. My understanding is that Tusla is not a child protection agency in law. It is a promotion company for child protection and welfare.

The Minister with responsibility for children has powers under section 69 of the 1991 Childcare Act to investigate Tusla and authorise HIQA to carry out investigations on his or her behalf to ascertain whether Tusla is complying with national standards for child welfare and protection. However, section 69 does not legislate for sanctions when Tusla is non-compliant. We believe section 69 of the 1991 Childcare Act needs to be amended to give the Minister powers to sanction Tusla when it fails to protect children it has taken into care and places them in harm’s way. Furthermore, we believe section 3 of the 1991 Act and section 8 of the CFA Act 2013 need to be amended to make Tusla fully responsible for child welfare and protection.