Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone for their submissions. I have a few questions. I will go through them all first and the representatives might take notes. Many of the questions are for the representatives from EPIC but I will highlight those that are not.

Some of Deputy Sherlock’s questions touched on points I want to make about independent advocacy. There is a lot of talk about ensuring the child’s view is heard. I am not sure I fully grasped how this is going to be achieved in a very real, concrete and sustainable way. Could the representatives from EPIC, and others if they have views, comment on the methods or measures that can be used within or in addition to independent advocacy to ensure a child is encouraged to express a view and that this view is incorporated?

My next question is for the representatives from EPIC and potentially TIGALA. How should “in loco parentis” be interpreted under head 4? I am wondering whether there is a need for interpretation in respect of the reference to due weight. Siblings may not be in a position to take care of a child, but should they still be able to advocate for that child? What is the role of extended families who cannot apply for guardianship in the sense of acting in loco parentiswithout being able to take full care of the child? How do we interpret that?

My next question is on the in camera rule and its impacts. In the context of criminality, in particular, some violations of the rule are subject to arrangements involving juvenile liaison officers. That was said to us recently and I thought it was strange. I do not know whether the information is accurate.

What is the position concerning children being able to fully express themselves online or engage while supervised on social media? I am not getting into the question of children being on social media but that is where life exists for many people. How do we ensure privacy arrangements and in cameraarrangements do not infringe on a young person’s existence in various ways?

Could the delegates from EPIC outline briefly what the joint protocol is and perhaps offer some insight as to how it works, including in the sense of there being no over-delegation of responsibility? My questions are for EPIC and TIGALA but maybe the Irish Foster Care Association representatives could respond on the joint protocol and whether it should be tied to the duty to co-operate, as under head 10. I refer to allowing clear indicators in regard to delegation, especially when we consider mental health needs and other additional needs. Could the delegates speak about the private family arrangements and the effect of not having protections for children in the sense of their not having support?

Maybe the representatives of the Irish Foster Care Association and EPIC could state the stage at which children in care receive therapeutic support. It is appalling that they do not have a right to therapeutic support, so I am wondering when somebody does receive therapeutic support and about the impact of not receiving it.

Regarding people under supervision orders, we sometimes forget about young people who are under State supervision but do not necessarily end up in care. Potentially, they would not be entitled to any aftercare support. Even though they never entered the care system, they have been heavily supervised by the State on the grounds that they may be at risk, having been supported within the family. Is this a target group we are failing regarding the continued supports?

My next question, on the childminder’s home, is for Ms Heeney and Ms Byrne. It is related to caring for non-relative children. Am I correct in saying the number has to be five plus? I think there is a number but I will have to check.