Mr. David French:

Yes.

I am not sure the initiative should be solely with Tusla to go from the criminal courts down to the family courts and literally just move a piece of data, concerning a verdict having happened, across from one court to the other so it can act on it. That is literally just transmitting one piece of information concerning someone having been charged and found guilty. This is not somewhere where Tusla's special competences in supporting parents and families add any value. Anyone else, including the Courts Service, the children's relatives or the children themselves through a guardian ad litem, could undertake that function. It is just a mechanical thing and is not adding value. I do not think this is something Tusla should necessarily have to do. If the children are in care and Tusla is acting for them, then clearly it has a role, but if the children are not in care, then it should be someone else. Tusla should not be dragged into something it was not already involved with.

In 99.9% of cases, what the organisation does as the Child and Family Agency is to support parents. The CEO, Kate Duggan, said publicly on "The Pat Kenny Show" recently that it is there to help and support parents, and this makes perfect sense. The organisation does fantastic work. This is except in cases of a parent like my former brother-in-law, where, unfortunately, Tusla will do what it always does, help and support. When that help and support is landing on someone who has harmed the children directly by killing their mother, it does not make sense anymore. I can see from the agency's perspective that, normally, it is protecting someone who is in prison, but if it is someone in prison for doing this particular crime, that should be an exception. I think Tusla's and everybody's life would be easier if it was not being pulled out into this area. There are enough problems for the organisation to be dealing with.