Ms Claire Quinn:

It makes sense. In bringing examples to the committee, we hope to bring the child's experience alive because the child has to remain at the centre of all of this. In practical and real terms, if a child comes into care on a voluntary basis, we would advocate for a review six months down the road to be built in. That review would include all the stakeholders, with the parents and child at the centre. Perhaps six weeks in advance, a guardian ad litemwould be appointed so that he or she can work with the child in advance of the review to ensure the child's participation. As the committee has heard, the role of the guardian is twofold. It is to bring the child's voice to the decision-making process and to offer a professional opinion as to what is in the best interests of the child. On a practical level, and depending on the case and child in question, after six months, there may be a number of different scenarios. Within those six months, a parent may not have engaged whatsoever with the State, Tusla or the child. In that case, a decision might be considered by the stakeholders or Tusla that it would be in the child's best interests to commence care proceedings. There may be a case where the parents have engaged well. In such a case, a reunification plan might be considered at a review. It is important for the child's voice to be a part of the decision around a reunification plan. We work with children and adults with mental health difficulties, addiction issues and a variety of needs. It could be that after six months, a parent is not yet in the place he or she wants to be. We know that addiction issues and things like that are complex and a parent may not be where he or she wants to be within six months so voluntary care might be required for a little longer.

That would be decided at the six-month review. That is how we envisage it working in practical terms.