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

I thank Ms Gallagher for the contribution. I think of the six areas of concern highlighted by the UN committee and how so many of those, when we think of the earlier conversation regarding children in care, are about how we place them within families that are vulnerable and then place those families within communities that are struggling. We must look at the systemic failure relating to some of those areas that are mentioned, whether that be mental health or the standard of living. On one hand, we have to recognise that the State has a role. Obviously, some children end up in care and sometimes it has nothing to do with the standard of living or mental health. Sometimes it can be with regard to plain neglect or sexual abuse and so on. Taking those cases aside and looking at many of the other cases in terms of struggling communities and families, a high proportion of some families who end up coming into contact with Tusla are from specific communities.

I read the contributions and Ms Gallagher's opening statement, and one sentence refers to the failure of the State to provide an adequate standard of living so that families have a way to flourish. If we look at adequate access to services, mental health supports and housing, they are all prevention measures relating to kids ending up in care. Then, because of that failure in many senses, many kids and families end up coming into contact with Tusla and then being failed a second time.

We say the care system, or Tusla, is going to get involved, and even though the State failed them the first time, now we are going to say the State is best placed to care for them in the context in which we failed them in the first place. I really struggle to get my head around it, and I think then of the State not being able to be a better “parent”, because that is what it becomes, than the situation the child faced in the first place. A lot of people I worked with over the years who have been in care speak about the fact that the impact of being in the care system felt more traumatic to them than the actual family situation, which was nonetheless somewhat traumatic as well.

It is about that realisation gap. How do we begin to challenge that? What step needs to be taken? Is it about having a greater focus on the child poverty issue Ms Gallagher mentioned or is it about having some sort of understanding of why kids end up in care, with targeted supports for those communities if there is a thread running through why certain people end up in care? I am thinking also of the use of restraint and seclusion on children in care, and I assume medical restraint is included in that along with physical restraint. I wonder, from a legal perspective and also considering the point made by Judge Simms, how we can rationalise that when the case of that child that was mentioned is in the care of the State and when restraint or seclusion is the answer. Are there human rights abuses? If those children or families were in a better position, could this be legally challenged whereby, if we are to see the State as the "parent", the State could be challenged for being a bad "parent"? If a child is failed within the home and then failed within the State, there is no third option. How do we begin to challenge that properly?

On the point about information gaps in the context of child sex trafficking, is our system comparable with any other EU state? Have we not built the structures within which to gather that information based on anywhere else, or have we just created it in the dark without taking on systems from elsewhere? Is there a good comparison for what would be a good system to ensure we are not under-identifying children who have been trafficked?

I have further questions I would like to ask but I will give the rest of my time to Ms Gallagher for answers. She said she had a lot of views and thoughts on the previous session. Rather than just hope they will come up, I invite her to point to them during the session where they are relevant.